Liberating software - interview with Richard Stallman

http://rt.com/programs/spotlight/liberating-software-richard-stallman/

by Tsiolkovsky • 15 years ago

54 68 15 years ago

Flimm3• 15 years ago

"On the one side are companies that sell programs to make money. On the other are people who believe software must be totally free."

Even before interviewing Richard Stallman, the journalist still didn't understand the difference between free/libre and free/gratis.

Maybe one day, the FSF will give up trying to force people to use the word "free" the way they insist it must be used. That "free software" is gratis is a very common misconception. Stallman could do a thousand interviews, continually correcting this misconception, or he could realise that the FSF's name itself is spreading it.

_delirium4• 15 years ago

It's a tricky problem, because I'm not sure any word clearly encompasses the idea that "the user has the right to modify it and share their modifications". Open-source was one attempt, but has the other confusion that it's only about availability of source, not freedom to use/modify it. And RMS dislikes the OSI for other reasons, some of which are that they de-emphasize this user-centric freedom and instead focus more on things like why open-source software improves software reliability.

"Creative commons" is a more successful attempt, but has a strong art/music/literature connotation (which is where it's caught on more, with associated phrases like "right to remix" that get at the same idea, but in a very media-focused way).

lukifer• 15 years ago

Perhaps "liberated software"? I personally think "open source" and "open license" are sufficient. But yeah, FSF and friends are tilting at windmills with the whole "beer/speech" refrain.

xd• 15 years ago

Maybe if they just tweaked it to "Freedom Software" .. people might get it.

thy• 15 years ago

when more peolple get actually interested in programming and hacking, the right interpretation, perhaps the philosophy itself would be obvious. I mean, when the kids get that to play with on the school..

Flimm3• 15 years ago

I've come across this misconception many times even on Hacker News and FLOSS-related community sites.

paulhauggis7• 15 years ago

"Even before interviewing Richard Stallman, the journalist still didn't understand the difference between free/libre and free/gratis."

The problem is that "free/gratis" and "free/libre" are intertwined. If you sell an app to a user that is under the GNU license, they have the right to re-compile and re-release it for free (and it's allowed under the license).

I've tried to charge for software under the GNU license. The type of people that use it generally expect it free as in beer. If it isn't, you get hate mail and someone will eventually release their own free version (which is an exact copy of the the paid edition) to compete with yours. You will slowly lose all of your sales and traffic unless you also release it for free.

skeptical6• 15 years ago

Why would you expect to do one thing once and then resource to virtually cost-free copying to get money from it? If people won't pay for it is because they feel is not worth to pay. Indeed if I can get something for free I'm not so much inclined to pay for it.

If you keep developing it and charge for access to a privileged access to updates, I'm sure you're sales will keep up. If you're updates are worth it, that is.

getsat• 15 years ago

> Maybe one day, the FSF will give up trying to force people to use the word "free" the way they insist it must be used.

Maybe sooner than you think: http://developers.slashdot.org/story/11/12/17/1735253/gpl-co...

jhuni4• 15 years ago

This isn't a problem in other languages.

billpatrianakos11• 15 years ago

Stallman repeats two idea that are intentionally misleading. He says that proprietary software controls the user instead of the user controlling the software. This is not true and it really depends on what "features" you are comfortable with having in programs you buy. Stallman likes to say iTunes is a jail but to him that feature is restrictive while to others it's simply convenient. If I buy a copy of Windows or Office or iWork I do control the software. I'm able to control the input and output. It certainly has limitations but depending upon what knd of user I am I may not care to extend the application or modify it or learn how to do so. If I really wanted those "free" abilities then I'll choose free software but Stallman assumes we all want to be free as it relates to software. Not everyone does.

The other idea I'd disagree with is how he says free (as in liberty) software can be sold. In theory it certainly can have a price tag but when the source is just out in the open there's no incentive to use the paid version as someone will certainly put out some slightly modified free (gratis) version. That's the bulk of why proprietary software exists in the first place.

One more thing that irked me was that Stallman implies that only proprietary software makers will put malicious code in their products. Really? So everyone who's on board the Free Software Movement has only good will towards man and would never dare try to harm another user for their own ends?

In the end I think Stallman makes some good points but unfortunately he ends up sounding like an ideologue and at times even a conspiracy theorist. That turns me off. If he's all about freedom then he should also accept that we have the freedom to choose free or proprietary these days and there are people who choose no free software because we don't mind being tied to a certain ecosystem. I love my Mac and I so far, while Lion does treat me like an idiot at times, don't mind the "restrictions" at all. In fact I barely notice them because they're just not important to me. That's my choice, the same choice everyone else has. I also have a Linux box which I love for different reasons. In the end I'm able to have it both says and I think everyone does.

mahcuz• 15 years ago

The authors of proprietary software control what you do with that software.

Quite clearly Free Software as a source of income works. Sell the support for the software which you have written, software you will be most familiar with. This is the model for countless companies writing Free Software.

People are malicious (I enjoy your cynicism, BTW). The difference between proprietary software and free software is that you're free to find those malicious "features" (mind the quotes) by reading the code that is available to you under Free Software. If you can't find it (the evil - not the code), you can assume that the massive community will (eventually). This is impossible in proprietary software. You don't control the software - it controls you.

mike-cardwell• 15 years ago

That works fine for software which requires support. However, I don't want to rely on getting paid by doing support. I'd like to just write some software and for people to pay me for it.

I'd be happy to let customers have the source code, and even let them sell patches to each other and/or me. But I don't want people to legally be able to resell copies of my work, ala the GPL. If somebody wants to use the program that I wrote, I want to be paid for it. They can modify it however they want after that.

What are my options for doing this? I have released numerous programs licensed under the GPL in the past, but I have a few ideas where I would want to be directly paid for the software.

davidw• 15 years ago

What the other poster is saying is that

> The authors of proprietary software control what you do with that software.

He's fine with this, as are many other people.

And I think that's a fair point: if you really are going into the deal with eyes open, knowing you're going to be locked in and tied down to whatever platform, you should be free to make that choice. Of course, if you're smart, you'll drive a hard bargain, knowing that in the future you won't be able to. Stallman says that choice simply should not exist in that proprietary software should not exist.

The 'sell support' thing has some fairly serious limitations that make it less than ideal. Many software products - especially the end user variety - cost a lot to make. Selling 'support' for a product that works well and doesn't require much of it is not a good way to recoup all those sunk costs.

Since you cite 'countless' companies, how about we actually count a few and look at their revenue models?

* Redhat: first of all, they distribute a lot more software than they produce, which is fine, but the scope for that is pretty limited. Also, they basically use trademark law as an end-run around software freedom. You can't redistribute and call it Redhat, and you can't buy any support unless it's real Redhat, and support is a subscription, not a per-incident kind of thing.

* Mysql: they used the "GPL'ed library code" gig to try and get people wanting to embed the code in their proprietary products to cough up some cash. Legitimate business model, but would not work without proprietary software! Also, most things aren't libraries.

What else?

praptak• 15 years ago

> One more thing that irked me was that Stallman implies that only proprietary software makers will put malicious code in their products.

Yeah, anybody can put a trojan in Firefox. But only proprietary software can keep antifeatures - non-secret features that are detrimental to its users. DRM is the epithome of that. More here: http://www.fsf.org/bulletin/2007/fall/antifeatures/

dman• 15 years ago

You have to realise that he looks at software from a developers point of view. To him using software includes the ability to extend it. I think to understand the essence of Stallmans point of view you have to realise that it is the nature of software to not just be used and provide human benefit by virtue of its existence but also to be read and understood. The next set of young hackers can today understand how to make an operating system because they can look through the implementation of a state of the art operating system. The more onerous parts of the GPL exist to protect this naive, delicate world view - one where code is perceived to be extensible art - one that is read, used and extended. I have to admit my bias - I dont agree with everything that Stallman says and does, but on the issue of the users right to read and extend code I strongly agree with him. My tribute to every software that I love and find magical is to read and understand how it works.

_delirium4• 15 years ago

Ted Nelson's another person with that view, though he focuses less on licensing, and more on things like whether it's technically possible to modify software or hardware (e.g. how black-boxed, "no user serviceable parts" it is) and whether people get sufficient education to understand and manipulate the increasingly technical world we find ourselves in. I tend to agree with that; I think licensing barriers are one barrier, but not the only one, and not necessarily the biggest one. Unfortunately, some of Nelson's better books are out of print currently...

Alan Kay has some interesting comments somewhere about a software-design ethic of designing for user empowerment (rather than passive "use"), as well, though I can't seem to find a good canonical paper/talk.

As for the GPL, I personally like it for different reasons, more of quid-pro-quo reasons that Stallman might dislike, something like: you can use and modify this software however you'd like, with the sole condition that you have to share back any improvements you make. To me that seems like a fair thing to ask in return for using my code, since I wasn't obligated to release it in the first place. People who disagree can always pay me for a traditional source licensing agreement.

jhuni4• 15 years ago

Open source is nice but its not a silver bullet. Most young hackets are free to view UNIX crud well state of the art features in OS design like single address space orthogonal persistence remain mostly unknown.

billpatrianakos11• 15 years ago

I'm looking at this from a developer's point of view too. I agree with Stallman on a lot of points. I dislike some of the malicious code he talks about and I also believe it is important to be able to view source. But we already have that without the FSF. This belief that all software should be free (as in liberty free) is unacceptable. We should be able to choose what happens to our work. There is a place in this world for both types of software. I love OS X. Now, it doesn't matter whether you like it or not too, what matters here is that I really don't think that the FOSS community could have built something as wonderful as that OS without the resources of a large company. Ubuntu is great and comes closest to being a real replacement for proprietary OSes but the design of the Mac and the whole ecosystem that Stallman hates is actually an incentive to choose it! I love the walled garden of the iTunes, app store, and Mac platform in general because it gives me everything I need. I don't cry about not being able to modify or see the code and Im happy to pay because I get a ton of value from it.

On the other hand I also have a Linux machine. I love switching distros frequently, using the free software that comes with it and being able to mod my system however I want.

My point is that eradicating proprietary software hurts people just as much as if we were to eradicate the FOSS movement. People choose their platform based on what they're able to do. Most users aren't programmers and prefer Windows or Mac over Linux because it's well known, easy, and gets the job done. I'm glad we have FOSS too though. Why can't the two coexist? Why is proprietary always evil? What's wrong with making money? As it stands we're living in an amazing time where we have the best of both worlds and both sides are playing to their strengths in the greatest of ways.

kabdib2• 15 years ago

Stallman conflates "charging money" with "being evil".

Charging money depends on some kind of friction, e.g., not providing source code, or releasing something so complex that you can charge for support, or releasing toy versions.

When I asked Stallman how I was going to make a living writing software if I gave my work away for free, all he said was "Well, I'm sure you can find a way." I wasn't reassured. I am, in fact, rather proud that people pay me for my work; it's a sign that it's worth something, and that I'm doing something right.

Charging money isn't evil, /evil/ is evil.

skeptical6• 15 years ago

Err... no.

He associates evil with charging money for software but not letting the buyer having his basic owner rights. Being that the right to modify, use and redistribute.

Read this on the gnu website and understand how wrong you are: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html

When asked that question he usually replies "if you can't make money by doing free software, maybe you can look for another job". One cannot blame him for putting his ethical principles in front of his professional interests. I, for one, think that's the way it should be.

In 2011 in hacker news we still have to clarify this... oh well...

paulhauggis7• 15 years ago

"Being that the right to modify, use and redistribute."

....except using it in a proprietary application and not redistributing your changes. Just ask the Thesis theme owner about this.

"He associates evil with charging money for software but not letting the buyer having his basic owner rights. Being that the right to modify, use and redistribute."

The problem with what you said here is that he things its evil to not allow someone to be able to share an application with all of their friends after they bought it once. I suppose he's not directly saying money is evil, but since you pretty much can't make money on an app this way (eventually it will be shared and you will lose any hope of making a profit), he's indirectly saying it.

Sure, you can make money on support, but this rules out most small companies because most simply don't have the support staff.

Eventually, this will catch up with the development community. We've all seen bookstores, newspapers, and many other traditional businesses go under in the past couple of years due to the Internet.

Business owners are getting more tech savvy as the older generation dies off. Why should I hire a college-educated software engineer that can write complex apps when I can get all of those difficult parts for free in an OSS app and hire a less-educated software mechanic for less money?

We aren't there yet, but as more and more things are released for free, we will be. My prediction is that the prevalence of open source software it will devalue developer wages over time.

I've already seen it happening. Not necessarily devaluing, but hiring one developer instead of three because an open source app can be used.

billpatrianakos11• 15 years ago

Wait a minute now. Are those really a user's basic rights? Who is Stallmam to decide for both users and developers what our rights are? If users get those rights then developers have theirs taken from them.

This is unique to software and it isn't right. There's an underlying sense of entitlement to this that I don't agree with. No one is entitled to the right to modify my work and redistribute it. That completely undermines the developer and there's no incentive for people to innovate. It's a free for all where everyone rips everyone else off. This only works if everyone holds firm to Stallmam's beliefs.

If we want to talk about rights and freedom, how about the right for everyone to choose. As it stands now we all can choose to make or use software that allows us to modify, extend, or distribute or we can choose to go proprietary. Both have their merits for both users and developers. These aren't really rights at all. Anything that takes freedom from one group and shifts it to another isn't freedom at all.

Stallman's entire ideology is built around a false choice. This shouldn't be free or proprietary, it should be free and proprietary.

Permit• 15 years ago

>One cannot blame him for putting his ethical principles in front of his professional interests.

However, one can most definitely blame him for projecting his ethical principles onto others.

_delirium4• 15 years ago

I really would've expected better than a comment that's either woefully ignorant or deliberately "misstating his views" (to put it nicely) to be at the top of the discussion, but HN seems to go nuts when Stallman is mentioned...

Could you rephrase your argument against his viewpoint in a way that doesn't include false statements?

kabdib2• 15 years ago

No. True conversation with Stallman, circa 1988.

skeptical6• 15 years ago

If you've seen other interviews with RMS, this is pretty much one more, a good one to be fair.

Spoiler alert!

Best part of the interview: Journalist: Are you married? RMS: No, I'm not. Journalist: Well, I am, I don't want to be free.

sathishmanohar• 15 years ago

If Richard Stallman, has changed the name of "Free Software Foundation" to "Software Freedom Foundation", He could have saved 2 years of his lifetime, not having to explain "free as in freedom, not free as in beer".

mwk• 15 years ago

First constructive comment I read.

tikhonj5• 15 years ago

The issue isn't so much with the Foundation as with "Free Software" in general. It wouldn't make sense to call Firefox a "Software Freedom" project, but calling it "Free Software" does makes sense (just in too many ways at the same time).

calcnerd256• 15 years ago

"The Software Freedom Foundation encourages (and participates in) the creation of Liberated Software"

skeptical6• 15 years ago

On the flip side,a mantra is a very powerful marketing trick.

soitgoes2• 15 years ago

Agreed with a lot of what he was saying about corporations controlling government and society. SOPA seems like a good example of that.

billpatrianakos11• 15 years ago

I have to play devil's advocate here because what you said is interesting.

Why do we not want corporations in control? Does using their software give them real control? How so and how much?

Now once you've answered those questions you then must ask yourself, if the creators of the software used by government agencies has the ability to control those agencies then who should be "in control"?

If only free software was used like Stallman wants then we're just shifting control from one group to another. What's to say that Stallman and the FSF can and will only do good?

Make no mistake here, even though Linux and other free software is driven by the community that doesn't mean there aren't cases where a single developer works alone and releases something as GPL. In addition, while you can always add to a free project the developer has final say of what makes it in and what to leave out. You can put out your own version but if you don't have enough clout then it's unlikely your better version gets used. If Linux was used in government then Stallman has control. If they use Red Hat then they have control. I think Red Hat is an interesting example because while they're free they can still be just as manipulative as any large corporation if they wanted to.

Doesn't it make sense that if you don't want anyone to be "in control" of government agencies through the use of certain software then those agencies would need to roll their own at every level. In the end we're all beholden to the developer whether the software is free or proprietary.

billpatrianakos11• 15 years ago

Edit: to clarify, I know Stallmam isn't the guy behind Linux. What I'm saying is that it would be reasonable to assume that whatever software he wants us to be using would need to have his stamp of approval and that stamp comes with a lot of opinionated, biased views. And as for being beholden to developers, free software mitigates many issues but it only works in this scenario if the agency has a team dedicated to ensuring the entire code base is up to their standards in which case why not just roll their own?

tikhonj5• 15 years ago

For any open source project, the developer only has a final say on the name. If you disagree with what somebody is doing, you are always free to take the code and change what you like. If Linux is used in the government, the government has control: if they want they could, oh, write their own access control and security system for it. And then release it as open source. But that's patently ridiculous, right?

The whole point of Free Software is that you are not beholden to the developer--you are always free to modify the code yourself or hire somebody else to do it. The government could even maintain their own distro and do everything the way they want. With proprietary software, there are two issues: they are not allowed to modify it legally and it is not practical because you only have a binary.

In fact, the whole point of the GPL is to ensure that not only the original developer does not have absolute control over the source, but that other developers can't do so either.

jhuni4• 15 years ago

To answer your questions, despite what some governments say, corporations are not people. We should strive to allow the people to be in control. By definition, proprietary software grants exclusive control to a private group such as a corporation. People who are using the software have essentially no control over it, they don't know if the program has malicious features, and they can't fix them if they are put there by accident.

No external source is in control of your free software. For this reason governments should always use completely free software. As the software is free they don't have to worry about the whims of Linus or anyone else, most governments actually have their own OS forks like Red Flag Linux in the people's republic of China, Red Star OS in the DPRK, Nova in Cuba, Canaima in Venezuela, etc.

soitgoes2• 15 years ago

Sorry if I wasn't clear, I'm not against commercial software. I develop commercial software myself. Where I was in agreement with Stallman was when he was talking about the "empire of the corporations". Looking at what's happening with SOPA, it appears that corporations may get this law past because they have been throwing money at the political parties. This isn't anything new, but watching the debate and seeing it happening before my eyes brought home to me just how corrupt government can be.

jroseattle2• 15 years ago

> programmer-turned-philosopher Richard Stallman.

Oh boy. I guess if you have steadfast beliefs to the point that you can no longer keep yourself from sharing those every time you turn around, you become a philosopher.

RMS doesn't have a problem with software. He has a problem with capitalism. Stallman's approach to software is one to which I don't subscribe. Software is not something I see as needing liberation, like those of oppressed individuals in a society.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I would love to avoid some of the proprietary black boxes that I have to deal with in my job. However, I knew the situation going into it. Many times, I've not had the option of avoiding a black box.

That's a customer service and/or product problem, not an industry problem. If it's a problem that actually impedes innovation, I have a solution -- it's called the free market. We've never been in a better position to provide software solutions to problems not addressed by the market, and we can charge for them, give them away, do whatever we want. There is nothing holding us back in this scenario.

I find ironic his insistence that I cannot control software I create -- because no one should be allowed to control software -- is, in and of itself, controlling.

billpatrianakos11• 15 years ago

Very well put and I'd like to add to that but before I do I'd just like to say that I don't get why you were downvoted. This is such a well reasoned, on-topic comment and it deserves more discussion. It seems any time there's a post on RMS all of his supporters jump on the thread and I,mediate ly and relentlessly downvote anything that doesn't correspond to their worldview no matter how relevant or rational it is.

That speaks to the larger issue you touched on about Stallman and the FSF. They like to talk about control but don't see how they're being controlling. It's as if because Stallmam believes he's doing something "for the good of the people" it's okay to further his cause by any means necessary. I'm hesitant to say this but it kind of reminds me of Malcolm X. Malcolm X was a very well intentioned man and his cause was a just one. The only problem was that he went to extremes, glossed over the gray areas, and refused to accept any other view no matter how good a point the other side made.

You can be a supporter of free software while still supporting proprietary software. What Stallman is arguing for takes control out of the hands of the creators and gives it not to the people but the FSF. It's like Stalinist Russia except for software. For the good of the people everyone should own your work.

Stallman's views make some assumptions that are unacceptable.

1. He assumes people want to be able to modify the applications they use. Not so. In fact, most people I'd argue acquire software so they don't have to write code. I don't download a text editor because I want to extend it. I do it because it helps me get something else done. I choose the software that meets my needs. If I wanted to toy with source code I'd build my own IDE, compiler, etc and start everything from scratch.

2. It assumes everyone is, wants to be, or should be a programmer. What use is the source code if it looks like gibberish to you? This view glosses over the fact that the majority of users don't give one iota of a shit about programming. They just want to watch YouTube or write their English class essay.

3. It assumes that anything closed source must have something sneaky within it. Okay, so there's spyware and back doors in a lot of proprietary software. That doesn't mean the guy that doesn't release the source of his text editor (I'm thinking of my new favorite editor, Chocolate for Mac) is spying on you or doing anything malicious at all.

4. It assumes that anyone who supports, uses, or develops free software is on the honor system and would never do anything unethical. I think the part where he suggests that free software can be charged for is laughable. If you release anything under GPL you can be reasonably sure someone will take your source and give away some free version of your program or even derive something else and make money off your hard work. Red Hat Linux is not a good rebuttal of this point. Most software, especially from indie devs, doesn't lend itself to the Red Hat business model well at all.

Programming is a very valuable skill and the creators of great software deserve to choose how they license and distribute that software. Stallman wants to take choice away from one group and give it to, well, no one really. I'd argue we have choice now. I want to be able to choose proprietary software if it meets my needs and I want to be able to not only charge people for my work but make sure they cannot turn around and undermine my efforts by deriving or giving away my work. That's very reasonable. I love free software and use it often but I can't say there's anything evil about it. There's this sense of entitlement to Stallman's message that I don't like too.

quanticle2• 15 years ago

>I find ironic his insistence that I cannot control software I create -- because no one should be allowed to control software -- is, in and of itself, controlling.

Not really. Stallman is actually making a very libertarian point when he insists that users have the right to modify and redistribute software. He's saying, in essence, "Your rights end, where mine begin." To Stallman, every user has the right to modify and redistribute software, just like they have the right to modify and resell any other tool they use. As a software developer, you don't have the right to take away a user's software because they modify and resell it.

jroseattle2• 15 years ago

> To Stallman, every user has the right to modify and redistribute software, just like they have the right to modify and resell any other tool they use.

I guess we should then be permitted to modify and resell a book, a movie, or anything else that's the output of one's thoughts?

If that's where the argument ended, I would simply say "well ok" and move on, but Stallman goes beyond that. He wants to dictate what terms I would put around any application I provide as a product, simply because it's in the realm of software. As if software is this magical land where I have no say in anything I produce.

Framing this industry as somehow different based on a simplistic parallel of hard goods = soft goods is disingenuous.

pm90• 15 years ago

There was a question in the video which i found interesting (and which i think was not answered in the video)... if the source code of a program is publicly available, then won't an attacker have an easy time in finding vulnerabilities? By making only the binary available, isn't this risk being eliminated? (I don't know much about this, so was just wondering whether there is a good explanation for why this is true or not...)

Liberating software - interview with Richard Stallman

Related Stories