Richard Stallman: legendary founder of the Free Software Foundation, purveyor of the GPL, defender of open source. And – as of today – expert FUD manipulator.
Obviously someone was seriously pissed off at the abundance of (largely positive) press coverage Bill Gates has been receiving as he stepped down from his final roles at Microsoft.. and it appears Mr. Stallman just couldn’t bear to let the man he hates more than any other step down without getting that last word in.
In an article by Richard Stallman published on BBC today, Stallman pulled back no punches bashing not only Bill Gates, Microsoft, and makers of proprietary software everywhere but also took the incredibly cheap shot of accusing the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation of working to ruin the very countries they’re trying to help:
Gates' philanthropy for health care for poor countries has won some people's good opinion. The LA Times reported that his foundation spends five to 10% of its money annually and invests the rest, sometimes in companies it suggests cause environmental degradation and illness in the same poor countries.
Never mind the fact that those are unsubstantiated rumors following money trails several-hundred pockets deep – what does the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation have to do with Free Software? Is Stallman so desperate to make Mr. Gates out to be the bad guy that he’d sink this low?
Stallman, one of first people to accuse people of spreading FUD to further their opinions, doesn’t stop there:
Gates is personally identified with it, due to his infamous open letter which rebuked microcomputer users for sharing copies of his software.
It said, in effect, "If you don't let me keep you divided and helpless, I won't write the software and you won't have any. Surrender to me, or you're lost!"
Here Stallman is referring to Gates’ now-famous letter asking people illegally copying, distributing, and using Altair Basic to stop. Stallman somehow neglects to mention that – regardless of whether morally acceptable or not – Microsoft had the legal right to demand payment in exchange for their software. Ignore for a second whether or not Bill Gates and Microsoft were in the right or in the wrong to ask for payment in exchange for their work – is Richard Stallman seriously suggesting that it’s right to illegally obtain copyrighted software?
It’s one thing to say that Gates should never have charged for his software and another to say that it’s OK to use it without paying. Gates chose to ask for money, users (as Richard Stallman himself has advocated on many occasions in the past) should be looking for an alternative if they don’t want to front the cash.
Who Richard Stallman thinks he’s kidding, we don’t know. But he’s obviously crossed that line that shouldn’t be crossed; apparently desperate enough to stop Microsoft the minute he senses an opening… even if it means spreading FUD, making pointless accusations, and generally talking nonsense to get his point across. This isn’t any way for a respected figure in the open source community to act, especially not when it comes to someone who has – whether Stallman likes it or not – contributed as much to the tech community as Bill Gates has.
Glad you think this way too
When i first read the article i thought it was a journalist with Microsoft grudge who hadn't bothered to do any research....
Not a tech community figure head!
It's sad that Stallman tries to get involved in human rights issues outside his expertise, mostly because posts like this are inevitable when he does it.
Only the truly ignorant could possibly be unaware of what companies invested in by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation are up to. Unfortunately, many of these people will feel even more secure in their ignorance, thanks to Stallman's bad reputation (in many circles) now discolouring more important issues and truths.
I sincerely hope others who, like me, don't care much for the FSF and Stallman, are broadminded enough to separate his wierd views on software from the actual human rights issues in this world.
Stallman has given a fair summary of Gates's famous letter. As you rightly point out, Stallman has never advocated redistribution of proprietary software, so you've answered your own rhetorical question. However, Microsoft has been convicted of illegal activities which Stallman mentions in the article. Can you refute any of his statements?
@Dennis
"If you copy it to share with your friend, which is simple good-neighbourliness, they call you a "pirate""
That's close enough for me
I don't believe it's a cheap shot. Mr. Stallman mentioned an article he read in a newspaper. Moreover there is concern among many aid groups about what Gates real agenda might be with respect to drug companies and also the effect such concentrated wealth might have on targeted research.
It's been interesting to watch over the years as RMS and his ideas have become more mainstream. Years ago IBM lawyers refused to let him speak at the research lab, now they embrace GNU/Linux, SUN GPLs Java, etc..
The open source crowd did make it very popular and many programmers are willing to give up the freedoms of the GPL in using other licenses that better enable proprietary business models, but the ideas in the GPL persist and have gained more market share as time goes on.
It's all about freedom. Software is a form of mathematics. As much as I'd love to hold the patent on the pythagorean theorem and charge a nickel every time it's used in construction, it's free. All software should be the same. Free software actually protects the interests of programmers.
Mr. Stallman has done a good thing, during this last hurray for Mr. Gates, in reminding us all of what a bad company MSFT truly is.
You last comment about respect and technical contributions is in my opinion way off the mark. I find it hard to see any technical contributions from Mr. Gates. I see nothing but ripping off of other peoples ideas and code and then using it to build toll booths.
On the other hand Mr. Stallman has given us gcc and emacs, among numerous other contributions like the GPL. For emacs alone I will always have a soft spot in my heart for him.
All the best,
Bob Dionne
[...what does the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation have to do with Free Software?]
Richard Stallman was asked to write an article about Gates' retirement. It seems natural to me that he decided to mention Gates' main activities and behaviour. The issue about the Bill & Melinda Foundation is of public domain:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gatesx07jan07,0,6827615.story?coll=la-home-headlines
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-na-gates8jan8,0,1783208.story
http://www.democracynow.org/2007/1/9/report_gates_foundation_causing_harm_with
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ttq0IdULfjg&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVlnqnMHQ1c
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4103.htm
You are missing the point. The Free Software Movement founded by Richard Stallman is not about giving away software for free. “Free” stands for “freedom”, not “gratis”, so according to Stallman there's nothing wrong in charging money for software.
No. He is saying that it is wrong to prevent users from studying, modifying and sharing software. Free as in Freedom software is the only real contribution to IT.
Again, he's not saying that Gates should have given away his software for free.
Gates' practice has precluded the development of technology by refusing to share knowledge –-if he ever had any.
It really gets me whenever anyone automatically defends anything related to charities just because they are charities so it must be good. I don't think you can take the "sales" out of a salesman and no salesman does anything without expectations of a return. Despite what anyone considers "evil", point for point Bill Gates wins in that category and profits from it.
As a side note, how many would benefit here in the US from all this money? The reality of what he's doing in Africa is that it will make small changes in a few lives but make not much of a dent in the misery they suffer. Perhaps no long term relief at all.
Mr. Stallman is 100% right - it's not betweet 5 or 10% - it's only 4% investment in wellfare! And all the rest is correct too - Mr. Stallman was even too nice for Bill - he forgot to mention that part of the 4% is used to keep microsoft in bussiness and not switching to a true free OS.
Bill did the same as Al Capone - he doesn't pay taxes too...
[you know what i mean - everybody should contribute to what is needed for running a country - especialy if you use so much of the facilities as Bill does!]
I agree with Bob Dionne in a 100%... ...and also add that the biggest part of the web servers running tho whole internet RIGHT NOW are apache, which is free software... So... FUD? are you nuts? I think that a lot of people have the terrible wrong idea that free software is something pre-stablished or is like something that must to be there, but no one of us must to take care about... Something amorphous that nobody knows from where or what was it born... That impression is made because still we live in a world of companies that use propietary systems that still have not enough openness to see the other business models, including the used by free software and opensource - based companies. Well, let me tell you something: in the first place, that is software made with a lot of effort and in many cases with the demand of years of work... As it was known early, is "software in the public interest", which means that is something for the common benefit, but in any way it denies the commercial potential of the products. Simply it works different. To me it's pretty obvious that you never read the GPL, or even a FAQ about Free Software, you are manipulating FUD! :(
I really hate being put in a position to defend this bozo, but you pretty clearly did no research at all for this. I don't like Stallman. I never have. He's too dogmatic for my tastes. If you're going to go after him, do so on the basis of fact, not material misrepresentation, as you have done here.
The truth lies somewhere in between. Bill & Melinda Foundation is not doing all good. By pumping money in one type of research aka maximizing their return of investment, they have quite of bit of influence on which direction research flows. Personally, I believe research should follow scientific beliefs and not the money. I think RMS gripe is the money so donated was earned by unethical means. Illegal? no. Unethical? yes.
Also, I see Mr. Gates as a business man and not as a scientist or technologist. RMS may act crazy but his vision is unadulterated. I think you can do more good, in countries that are poor, by freeing software than by charging for it then turning around and giving a portion back.
We all know why laboratories invest money in helth research in Afrika: They get experimental rats for free.
I don't expect you to read about it, who cares about black africans anyway, but at least watch this film: The Constant Gardener (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387131/)
@poobal
Who says it is not illegal? I know of at least one US Court that did say it was maintaining an illegal monopoly.
Also, Gates single handedly caused the whole world to get used to the idea that software must suck - how many people keep telling you to save your word file continously, because if you don't, and it crashes, too bad?
How many people's windows boxes get infected by malware, simply because Microsoft decides that they don't care about security (http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/php/risks/search.php?query=authenticode) and went against the advice of notable industry experts? Even Steve Ballmer's crack team of windows experts could not fully uninfect Steve Ballmer's friend's computer - http://www.securityabsurdity.com/archives/14
And please don't give me the bullshit about unix/linux/osx computers being equally open to malware, if only their market share was higher. The original research on computer viruses performed by Dr. Cohen (he who named these things computer viruses) was done on VMS and UNIX. But guess what - in the intervening 20+ years, people actually take that shit to heart, and work on improving security.
Open your eyes and see for yourself. In the book The Software Conspiracy, Mark Minasi obtained on-the-record quotes from VP of software development at large companies, including Microsoft, on why they ship shitty software. The answer - because they can, and because the consumer keeps buying it. The only reason Microsoft even gives lipservice to security now is because it is a marketing effort (yes, there are people within the company who do care, but the direction of development is driven mainly by marketing).
You apologists need to stop doing so, and hold them accountable. The Software Engineering Institute did a piece of research and found that NASA's bug/line of code is about 1/million. IIRC, the opensource software bug/line of code was about 1/20000. Windows 2000 was released with 65000 known issues. At 30 million lines of code for win2k, that's 1 bug for every 461 lines of code. ETOYS.COM still has an open lawsuit against microsoft because of software shittiness issues - it was not ready for enterprise, despite claims.
HOLD THE PEOPLE SHIPPING SHITTY SOFTWARE ACCOUNTABLE. DO NOT ACCEPT EXCUSES.
Remember, the mainframe used to crashed a whole lot too. Until IBM decided, enough is enough, and put someone with the balls to fix the problem in place. Now, mainframes are the rock of stability. And the guy went on to start the Software Engineering Institute at Carnegie Mellon University, iirc.
HOLD THE PEOPLE SHIPPING SHITTY SOFTWARE ACCOUNTABLE, DAMNIT.
is Richard Stallman seriously suggesting that it’s right to illegally obtain copyrighted software?
Yes (AFAIK, he thinks that copying copyrighted software should not be a crime, even if of course it would be much better if you are copying free/libre software).
And I second that every minute.
The fact that copying bits is considered a crime, is the crime.
especially not when it comes to someone who has – whether Stallman likes it or not – contributed as much to the tech community as Bill Gates has.
Contributed positively or negatively? Not everything from Microsoft is bad, and I dislike braindead Microsoft-bashing, but I wonder if a world without MS would have really been worse.
The reporter is an idiot.
Oh your blog hates freedom, how novel.
Stallman is reaching pretty far on this one. I'm no lover of Microsoft and think Bill Gates says some stupid things. But... The Gates Foundation does do some good out there. I have two brothers who are going thru college pretty much for free thanks to the Gates Foundation. Coming form a very poor family I really appreciate this. There is a huge amount of money coming into the foundation right now, a good chunk of it from Gates himself and I know they are drastically expanding the amount of scholarships given out.
What a terrible thing :P
About the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation bit being a cheap shot, it's just part of argumentation. He's trying to establish the possibility of Bill Gates' practices being underhanded as he alleges by showing that Bill's foundation is. It's not necessarily a fair shot, but a relevant one.
Adobe makes incredible kick-ass products. Would those products exist or be as polished if there was no financial incentive? I rather doubt it. Anyone who studies basic economics (especially the Austrian school, my favorite) understands this.
Would games like World of Warcraft or Halo be written if software could be freely copied? If people had the source code to these games there would be hacks and cheats the likes of which could never be stopped. It takes an average of $50 million dollars to produce a game these days.
Companies have a right to charge for their product, and it is reasonable to expect that laws exist to protect software from being copied. Thats part of respecting property rights.
The flip side of the freedom coin, we are all free not to buy those products! Or develop our own free alternatives!
I agree that foundations and trusts are sketchy though.
One point ignored by many reactions is: does the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation indeed improve human happiness? (on the assumption that this is its purpose). I'm convinced they try: they have very good people, undoubtedly committed to human development, deciding which of many worthy projects to give money to. And, spending money on these things is, without doubt, much more laudable than spending money on more consumption (by Microsoft or the family Gates) for its own pleasure.
But, what does keeping people from getting AIDS (or even malaria) help with their happiness over the long term? All these poor people will, in 10 years or so, look for a job: there aren't any. What will they do? try to emigrate in rickety boats the Europe and the US? Kill each other (as in Ruanda, and now, to some degree, Zimbabwe)?
To prevent such long-term problems, it's clear (to me at least) that any attempt to keep people alive should be coupled to even more vigorous attempts to make sure that there aren't so many that they'll end up being in each other's way. That is, as an essential part of health initiatives you also need population control. All AIDS medicines should come together with anti-conception, all malaria nets with condoms (or whatever else works: it's a separate issue to find out how to make people want to have fewer children).
The Gates foundation is not alone in ignoring this point, but by this fact you can't accuse them of making things worse on purpose. It's short-sightedness more than malice.
The author of this main post completely misses the point Stallman makes and tries to show people. Free software does not mean it has to be free of charge, it means free as in freedom by granting the consumer (that acquires it legally) has some fundamental rights, which are to be allow to make changes to the software and have access to the code, make as many copies as one needs without having to keep re-licensing it, to be allowed to share changes made, to keep the changed code under the same terms of which it originally came while always giving credit to whomever has worked on it. The majority of the NET runs on free as in freedom software, along with things like Tivo and Sling boxes, home routers, cellphone towers, render-farms that movie studios use, and so many other things. Free software fosters comunity approaches to sharing information, innovation, faster security fixes and improved product versions. Many Free open source software companies have dual release products in a locked in license and a open one, with the open product versions they can also make money for providing support and contract improvements/features to the product.
He attacks Gates because his whole rain at MS has been to control and divide consumer rights for the sole purpose of profit while making life for their users very difficult to make core software fixes, improvements, let users do what they want with a product instead of forcing one way of doing something for the gain of one company or third party industries and to be damned with consumer rights. Most of Gate's foundation does invest in companies that rape and pillage lands while claiming they are doing social and environmental good with the organization, along with buying up medical and other patents so that they can exploit them for profit, instead of releasing them to the public domain so that solutions to problems that 3rd world and even 1st world countries and their people could actually afford to use and make the most positive impact by not trying to offer things for the highest profit and instead the most affordable solutions to solve world problems for the benefit of human kind as the goal instead.
One point that has been made already but apparently needs to be repeated: Stallman is not claiming anything regarding the Gates Foundation, but citing reports from mainstream media.
And another really major point:
Free software IS copyrighted. Even permissive, BSD-style licenses - now talking of GPL software, copyleft is actually a rather strong form of copyright license.
I have been following the industry for quite a while. I did the Microsoft thing, Apple thing, Open Source thing, Java, etc, etc things...
BUT its amazing how the Open Source crowd just does not grow up. They keep harping on the same ol' things...
Beep Beep clue to you Open Source lunatics... The problem is not Microsoft, its APPLE!
BTW for historical perspective... Microsoft allowed developers to write applications for their platforms. Apple on the other hand required that every developer get a token from Apple and be officially anointed. Sound familiar with the iPhone? BTW if you don't believe do some historical research and you will know this is fact not fiction.
Imagine if Bill Gates and Microsoft said, "hey you need to get a special token from us..." Imaging the uproar... Yet Apple is doing this, and not a peep!
It's not the point whether the Gates Foundation gives to charity, it is where the money came from in the first place. It's like watching Hitler buying starving children ice-creams for Christ's sake!
Aw man, why does the leader of OSS have to act this way, that's not good for the image of the OSS I love so much.
"The reality of what he's doing in Africa is that it will make small changes in a few lives but make not much of a dent in the misery they suffer. Perhaps no long term relief at all."
Wow, you know that with absolute certainty, huh? Tell me, who's going to win the Super Bowl, World Series and NBA Finals for the next 10 years?
"... defender of open source."
I hope this is an intentional jab at RMS, because if anyone is defending open source, it's definitely not Stallman. 'Defender of free software' would be better.
Firstly, this is missing the point, the point was not about Gates demanding payment, but demanding users to not share, to give up their freedom. Secondly, the real problem is not that MSFT demanded users not the help their neighbors, but that MSFT could demand such an unethical act, as implied with the section title "Unjust system".
Yes, well it is not right, but it's not wrong. What IS wrong is that the software is illegal to obtain. Sharing should be encouraged, not forbidden.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with charging for software, Stallman himself sold copies of GNU Emacs for 150$ pr copy. Selling free software has been FSF's main source of income for a long time.
It's not about not wanting to pay for it, but about not wanting to give up your freedom. That's what he has advocated.
Once again, he's not a member of the open source community, even less a respected figure in it.
Now let's back up a line to:
Where is the fear? Where is the uncertainty? Where is the doubt?
Stallman's a nut. Everyone knows this. It's time to call a spade a spade. As long as people with special ability make and do things that other people can't there's going to be intellectual and propterty rights. It's the way of the world. As far as his ad-hominem attack on the Gates Foundation, it's beneath contempt. I'm an open-source developer and I hold no brief for Microsoft.
It's true that what M$ is doing is legal and what Stallman is asking us to do is illegal but did anyone stop for a second to think what is moral? Almost any idiot can tell you that it's immoral for someone to own billions of dollars. How much and what kind of work would that person have to do to gain that much money? I get paid $5/hour. For one billion dollars, I'd have to work 200,000,000 hours without spending any cent. To gain that much money you'd clearly have to do something that is beyond the bounds of morality. Next, please?
This website runs on Microsoft-IIS/6.0 The post was written by someone who has his eyes closed and ears covered. Bill Gates and company is the master of FUD. RS is the master of anti-FUD. The bmgf has to by law give away 4% to keep their non-profit status. They give away exactly 4%. They (bmgf) push non-generic drug laws in poor countries, set up vacine camps in poisened mud holes - that are poisened by their investments for the foundation. 2nd and 3rd world governments are strong armed into buying MS software so they can get aid from the 'foundation'. Their are more stories that go on and on. "They pick on me because I'm more popular" is one of the biggest lines to come out of the Master MS FUD machine. -- Apache is far more popular running on Linux and BSD yet IIS has a far more breached security history than does Linux and BSD combined. There's a reason for that. MicroSoft is built without a security model and, well, everything else is. What's the gut reaction of the web server admin. when the following is posted: "This website runs on Microsoft-IIS/6.0" Compare that to the other admin if this is posted: "This website runs on FreeBSD/Apache" The first would be fear that the planet knows they have a security hole that won't get fixed any time soon. The second is pride. So to the poster: THPPP! I run FreeBSD and Linux servers. I sleep well at night.
I wonder if Gates even knows who Stallman is? What has Stallman coded lately? In my book he is just a talking head - all talk, no code. At home I prefer free (as in beer) software so I can buy more beer. At work - I will use whatever software my employer provides - I really don't care how much it cost or whether my manager had to sign away his soul to get a copy. I just don't care.
I have worked in the non-profit sector for years, both in America and Europe, and for multiple agencies who have taken money from the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation. I can tell you that Stallman's assertions are not only false, but ridiculously uniformed. I America today, to maintain foundation status, entities must give away 5.1% of their holding every year, which kind of makes sense. If foundations were to give away half of their holdings each year, then there would be no more foundation after only three or four years of operations. I can assure you that ALL foundations give away only about 5% of their holdings, and invest the rest. It is what keeps foundations afloat. In fact, the sheer fact the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation gives away up to 10% actually puts them ahead of the philanthropy curve.
Stallman Rants Again!
Gates writes a letter asking users please do not copy ALTAIR BASIC. Stallman rewrites the letter into an ultimatum. Stallman rants about this letter/ultimatum ad infinitum.
Gates retires. Stallman jumps around, waving his arms, yelling "Wait, wait. Look at me! I am still here. The FSF and I are going nowhere. Nowhere."
Stallman takes a deep breath. "Linux is good. Linux is good!"
Two things in the above article really catch my attention.
First, that the author slams Stallman's article, complaining about crossing the line when mentioning the Gates Foundation's questionable charity practices. Did he check his sources before saying that Stallman was proposing and fact which was unsubstantiated (I found these in thirty seconds; http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gatesx07jan07,0,6827615.story?coll=la-home-headlines | http://www.gatesfoundation.org/AboutUs/OurWork/AnnualReports/)? Many journalists have agreed with Stallman. The money trail may be "many pockets deep", but it is also public by law, and very traceable. This is neither a new subject, nor a new idea. Charities are not above scrutiny just because they are charities. There is no reason to avoid critical review. there is no line there to cross.
Second, that he rants about Stallman's supposed advocation of stealing copyrighted software, which he never does in the article (and Andy Parks furthers the by fabricating a false article quote for his comments. bad form, my Parks). The article does not in any way, shape or form advocate the theft of copyrighted material, but attacks the very idea of copyrighting it. Am I guilty of stealing gas because I complain about oil companies inflating prices? No, I am not. I am not advocating it's theft, either.
This is a horrible example of journalism. the author should check his sources, and possibly re-read an article, before making accusations as strong as these.
Wait, wait...
It's illegal/immoral to say that people shouldn't be able to copy copyrighted software, because that infringes on their rights to do whatever they want with it. (I.e., the rights of those contributing to the code -- who want it to remain closed -- are less important than the rights of those consuming their work, who think they should be able to do whatever they want with it.)
But it's also illegal/immoral to say that people shouldn't be able to take a chunk of GPL'd software and close-source, because that will infringe on the rights of the original contributors! (I.e., the rights of those contributing to the code -- who want it to remain open/free -- are more important than the rights of those consuming their work, who think they should be able to do whatever they want with it.)
I mean, I run Linux servers. I happen to agree that free-as-in-freedom software can be an excellent thing, and that trying to slip GPL'd software into commercial stuff in violation of license is a reprehensible way to act. I just also think it's sort of backwards to say 'well, you should disobey rules when you don't agree with them, and those idiots who want to actually sell proprietary software should just shut up and cope' but then also complain about others disobeying the rules that you DO agree with. Seems to me, one cannot have it both ways.
World of Warcraft is play by subscription. The initial purchase is sufficient for a month play, a small alount is for the transport media (cd/dvd). Bluntly stated: the software is free of charge. But each month a subscription fee is needed to play the game.
The same can be done for other software. E.g. recently those MS Office subscriptions surfaced.
@Mister Big Kick-ass? Polished? Have you ever used Acrobat/Reader? Apart from being horrendously slow and consuming copious amounts of heap, it dumps shortcuts in places without asking, its plugin used to crash Firefox on a regular basis, it has poor usability, and, like all other Adobe products, 'digs in' by leaving loads of miscellaneous files and registry entries all over the place. My experience has been okay with Photoshop, which is widely regarded as the best commercial image editing application, but again isn't without its faults regarding speed, memory consumption and usability, and certainly isn't 'polished'. I've never used Premier, but one of my colleagues reports it frequently crashing and having a poor range of output formats. I think Stallman rightly is rightly critical of Adobe, although of course his primary concern is their licensing issues and proprietary nature of their code.
As for open-source games, the Quake III engine is now Free Software under the GPL, and the Quake IV will be. There are a ridiculous amount of 'hacks' for closed-source games already, some of which are not software-detectable as they don't modify the game's executable but attack other places such as the underlying graphics API. Having the source may make it easier to write hacks, but this won't affect the number of users or the quality of hacks.
Sorry to be overly critical, but your comment about Adobe got my blood up :)
FooManChu: Stallman wrote the GPL. Its usage is currently growing, and its existance is solely responsible of your access to free software. What did Gates write ever, that is currently used?
Fuck RMS and fuck GNU.
Bunch of talentless hacks who don't have jobs living in their mothers' basements who want the whole world to give out their software for free.
Well fuck that. I'm not going to write my software just so some fat loser GNUtard who doesn't know what soap or a razor are can get it for free.
Packet:
It's not trying to have it both ways.
Free software is about the users, not the developers. RMS says it's better to use free software, but if you are going to use proprietary software, you shouldn't pay supporting those who harm the users (he said that in my presence). That's an ethical thing, not a legal thing.
The FSF fights people that try to harm users by closing formerly free software. They do so with legal tools, that happen to come from their copyrights. The goal is always the same, protecting the user, not the developer. The GPL is all about taking some freedom away from the disributors in order to keep the users freedom. The ethical issue is always the same. Protect the user, nevermind the others.
And it doesn't have anything to do with "commercial" software. Lots of commercial software is also free software. I happen to make a living with Java, that is now free. Eclipse is free, GNU/Linux is free, and commercial, too. When I work free lance, the software I sell is also free, but commercial.
the DMCA is the crap that keeps you from being able to copy something and give it to someone as a good neighbor. It was introduced a while after the Gates letter. Legally, the only thing wrong with it at that point was actually selling a copied version. Just giving it gratis to someone was fine. Then, the DMCA established all the crap with digital copies and "fair use" in 1998
""Many people believe that Microsoft helped construct Preston, Gates & Ellis as an alter ego for the Business Software Alliance. The firm of William H. Gates Sr., father of Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates, merged with Preston in 1990. The later old line Seattle firm started when Harold Preston located in Seattle from Iowa in 1883 and began practicing law. Jim Ellis joined Preston in 1949.
By getting William Gates Sr. together with Preston, Microsoft suddenly had an organization that looked like a law firm and not the legal department of Microsoft. The Seattle firm also had a small office in Washington, D.C. which helped Microsoft and the Business Software Alliance reach out and affect government policy.
But, Preston, Gates & Ellis needed to show some lobbying fees and clients other than Microsoft and the BSA. Adding Abramoff did just that. Additionally, he had his own clients and did not have to work on any Microsoft or BSA business.
Bad Choice
Adding Abramoff accomplished the goal of diversifying Preston, Gates & Ellis revenue and client base. But, Jack Abramoff didn't fit the culture. While most lobbyists seem happy with a six figure salary, Jack made millions annually. He also could be considered a maverick.
Now, the partners of Preston Gates must deal with the consequences of discovering their firm is listed on the invoice for Tom DeLay's plane fare to Scotland. They may also have to consider how deep and far the probe of their firm may go. For example, both Preston Gates and the Business Software Alliance are listed as contributors to the campaign of Senator Patrick J. Leahy, the Chairman of the Senate Judicial committee that ruled on the Government's settlement with Microsoft.
Meanwhile House majority leader Tom DeLay says that expenses on his trip were paid by a nonprofit organization and that the financial arrangements for it were proper. He contends that he had no way of knowing that any lobbyist financially supported the trip, either directly or through reimbursements to the nonprofit organization.
Non-profit organizations, foundations, multiple corporate entities seem like the products of a firm like Preston, Gates & Ellis. Someone will want to look into those issues. For example, on June 7, 2005, Bill Gates profile on CampaignMoney.com shows that he's contributed $59,100 since 1999 to all political candidates. Of course, that's personal money. Given the tens of millions of dollars attributed to Microsoft in campaign contributions, it might look like some kind of front organizations have made contributions beneficially for the welfare of the richest man in the world.
And the connection between Tom DeLay and Jack Abramoff: DeLay helped defeat a bill that would tax Preston Gates clients - American Indian casinos. You have to also wonder if those casinos used Microsoft Office.""
"You are missing the point. The Free Software Movement founded by Richard Stallman is not about giving away software for free."
I think you're missing the point: if you don't like Gate's policies, don't use his software. Write your own, or get it from someone else.
Stallman does not believe in the concept of "intellectual property." We'll some of us disagree. By all means, write your own software and give it away to anyone you like. The Linux and GNU has done this, which is and admirable and proper response. Whining about Bill Gates is not.
I thank RMS for his contributions to technology and for his efforts in free software, but he's turned into a crackpot who spews nothing but crap now. Very sad.
"It's not the point whether the Gates Foundation gives to charity, it is where the money came from in the first place. It's like watching Hitler buying starving children ice-creams for Christ's sake!"
And there it is. I was losing faith that I wasn't going to see some sort of "Nazi" connection in regards to MS or even Gates. Thank you internet, for not ever letting me down in your predictablity.
Beam me up, Godwin's Law.
@ Nino Pereira
There are other ways of looking at this sort of long-term help too, one notable example of which is the Aga Khan Development Network, which looks to help build schools, hospitals, businesses, etc. where people can learn and improve their lives and be able to find their own jobs. They recently, with the help of Ugandans, built a hydro-electric power plant in Uganda (duh) which allows both male AND female Ugandans to work and earn money, and it even has a day-care center so that women with children can also earn and have a say in their family's monetary affairs. Check it out at http://akdn.org/. The AKDN does so many amazing things in 3rd world countries it's breathtaking, like the Al-Azhar park in Cairo, Egypt (http://www.akdn.org/agency/aktc_hcsp_cairo.html, http://www.alazharpark.com/) - 74 acres of landfill turned into one of the most beautiful parks in the world.
-- Jay
@ Nino Pereira
There are other ways of looking at this sort of long-term help too, one notable example of which is the Aga Khan Development Network, which looks to help build schools, hospitals, businesses, etc. where people can learn and improve their lives and be able to find their own jobs. They recently, with the help of Ugandans, built a hydro-electric power plant in Uganda (duh) which allows both male AND female Ugandans to work and earn money, and it even has a day-care center so that women with children can also earn and have a say in their family's monetary affairs. Check it out at http://akdn.org/. The AKDN does so many amazing things in 3rd world countries it's breathtaking, like the Al-Azhar park in Cairo, Egypt (http://www.akdn.org/agency/aktc_hcsp_cairo.html, http://www.alazharpark.com/) - 74 acres of landfill turned into one of the most beautiful parks in the world.
-- Jaydee
It's not a cheap shot at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation...It's the truth. Instead of calling it a cheap shot, why don't you read up on the foundation. A lot of what they invest in are actually companies that pollute and harm humans, animals, and the earth. Maybe a little research before writing?
RMS is a crackpot. A loon. Sort of a Manson with a bunch of hippie followers, lost as all their type are. I can only shake my head how weird these people are. I ONLY see them on the internet though.
Herein lies the problem:
[quote]Stallman somehow neglects to mention that – regardless of whether morally acceptable or not – Microsoft had the legal right to demand payment in exchange for their software.[/quote]
When people fail to realize that moral obligations come above legal matters, then we allow dictatorships and oppressive organizations to form.
listen dude. piracy is good for the software community, general purpose software should be free. specialty software is what you should pay for.
It disgusts me to see a few reap so much out of society and so many get very little for their efforts.... Just because some are able to drain the riches of so many does not mean they are better equipped to redistribute their morally bankrupt, unfair gains. The people drained of their wealth would be far better qualified to make the decision and judge for thenselves how best to allocate that money. Had they not been legally robbed of that opportunity. Just so people like BillySoft can pull their own wire as to how generously clever they are...........((((NOT))))
Corrupt governments giving legal dictate does not work for me....!!!
'Imagine if Bill Gates and Microsoft said, "hey you need to get a special token from us..." Imaging the uproar..'
They already do this. There was no uproar.
Drivers for Windows Vista 64-bit must be cryptographically signed, approved by MS, or not loaded (unless you specifically tell the OS to run in a development mode).
To quote MS : -
"Components in the Windows Vista Protected Media Path (PMP) must be signed for PMP, and all other kernel-mode components must be signed by Microsoft for the Windows Logo Program (formerly "WHQL signature") or Kernel Mode Code Signing, in order to ensure access to premium content."
The signing certificate can be revoked by any Windows update, so if you write any kernel-mode software that MS (or anyone with their ear) doesn't like, they can stop it loading. This would include things like virtual soundcards (perfect recording with no analogue loss), video drivers that record video instead of displaying them, etc.
The thin end of the wedge - it's only a small leap to needing to sign other programs for the OS to load them at all. Then the only code running on Windows would be code that Microsoft approved of. What would it take to get their approval? You can bet it would involve a fat wallet, and a promise not to contribute to open source projects.
the paragraph about the bill gates foundation does not really seem to be the point of the article by stallman. the point is that proprietary sw is scheit, and i totally agree with that. open source sw has overtaken windows (vista), and it will be fun to wait and see when the business community notices it.
Stallman is a religious zealot who gives F/OSS a bad name. I'm not fond of Microsoft and Bill Gates but I'd rather get stuck next to Bill at a dinner party than Richard. And that's not saying much.
FooManChu:
"I wonder if Gates even knows who Stallman is? What has Stallman coded lately? In my book he is just a talking head - all talk, no code."
And what about this? http://www.ohloh.net/accounts/rms/positions/total - almost one MLOC, 150 LOC daily (in average) for the last sixteen years, all free for you to take - for everyone in the world to take and use - is that not enough for you? Measured by prices of proprietary commercial software, it is almost as if he donated the world tens of millions of dollars already. Not to mention that he succeeded in motivating other people to do the same. Oh sure, Billy G. is giving away more, but not in form of his own personal work at least. Guess which one I consider to be a greated act of charity.
"Beam me up, Godwin's Law."
Godwin law only applies to comparison with Nazi being common and often counterproductive in discussion, not validity of the argument. Considering that recently plenty of politicians and businesses revealed tendencies and achieved scale of wrongdoing that come close to Nazi "accomplishments", it's a perfectly valid comparison.
Gates and his company are directly responsible for at least 2-3 decades of delay in development of computer technology, and indirectly technology and society as a whole. Hundreds of millions of people's lives would be saved if computer technology now was at the level that it only has a chance to achieve by 2028. I see no reason why Gates trying to "compensate" this by taking over the control over a large chunk of biological research and aid to African countries is any better than hypothetical Hitler ice cream donation. In fact, I would rather entrust Hitler with ice cream than Bill Gates with control over research funding and government-backed projects in Africa -- and I am Jewish, so my opinion of Hitler is pretty low.
Again Stallman is preaching to the converted. He doesn't make much sense or have appeal to the regular Joe out there. Damn the BBC article didn't make even much sense to me: one of the converted to OSS. I run Desktop Linux, gave up on M$ nearing a decade ago. If the goal of Stallman is to further attract people to open source, then he really should work harder on his image, communication and presentation. He should write articles that are easier to digest, clearer, cleaner, more appealing to the clueless un-techie masses out there still stuck with M$ or mesmerized by Apple instead.
One very easy simple question everyone should ask the Bill Gates foundation. Must the recipient use Windows, or can the recipients use any OS/software of their choice?
I don't really care about Bill or Richard being "right." But I do care about tomorrow panning out for us all.
The problem here is not between Bill and Richard, or between Free software and proprietary software. It is about the outcast and the celebrity, the have-not and the have. Whatever feelings Richard has are laced with the pain of being outcast, and whatever Bill is experiencing is laced with the need to maintain what has been gained. There is no ability to have objectivity unless this is kept in frame throughout the discussion. Bill is wealthy and able to send large fortunes in parcels to others. Richard has ideas and no where near the spending power of Bill. The refrain from Richard is rights for communities and individuals. The refrain from Bill is property rights for corporations.
The real question here, is who is least wrong? What is the value of being in the position Bill is in, and what is the value of being in the position Richard is in? Regardless of the mistakes or successes of either of these men, what is the real value of their ideas? Is the failure of one still higher than the success of the other? Are they equal?
You know, rather than distributing things under open source, or even giving RMS an ear to hear his puny raspy breath, we could all live life normally and if we want to use software that is no-cost or no-copyright actually dedicate software to the public domain or under beerware licences (see wikipedia)....Reallly the whole 2.0 3.0 gpl or cc licenses which have the modus operandi "i'm almost public domain but i have to impose my will upon all possible sub-iterations" methodology of software development is arguably much worse than just closing the source and saying "buy me or screw you".
I miss public domain.
The DELUSION that Bill Gates is engaged in purely humanitarian activities with his foundation has been endlessly repeated by the same mindless media parrots that blindly repeated Gates' nonsense about the high tech labor "shortage" in America and the "need" for unlimited H1B Visas.
Gates aims to accomplish via "charitable" foundations, the same alteration in social, poltical, and economic policies that were attained by other large foundations.
In addition, Gates somehow comes away looking like a hero after his company engaged in anti-competitive actions which has brought down the wrath of the courts and hundreds of millions of dollars in fines.
Gates represents the worst aspects of American capitalism, a daddy Warbucks, who is invited to the White House a day after his company is accused of major anti-trust actions, a company which utilized its one time near monopoly desktop operating system to thwart and block competition, a company which gave away its office software in order to easily ruin the competition, a company which studiously ignored major security holes in its software until FORCED to publish security updates after hackers started publishing the astonishing weaknesses and oversights.
Oh no, the person running such a company is NOT JUST INTERESTED IN HUMANITARIAN CAUSES, you can COUNT ON IT.
Sorry man but this blog post is way off base.
The Gates Foundation is all about EUGENICS, which is essentially the shaping of the human race by selective breeding. It's about using science, technology, political pressure, FUD, propaganda, and yes, MONEY to shape the course of human development. The Nazis were real big on this, BTW . If Gates is successful in steering the path of humanity like he steered the software industry, the human race will end up like Microsoft Bob - not free, but OWNED; a seriously dumbed-down product used to fill the coffers of the elite.
Wow. The Stallbots are really out in force today, aren't they?
"The Nazis were real big on this, BTW"
Strike two for Godwin's law...
I'm not even going to try to make any informed comment. The thread long ago degenerated into the verbal equivalent of a brawl.
What does "legal right" have to do with anything? Are you forgetting who makes the laws? "Legal Right" is no absolute standard. It just reflects what benefits who is in power at the time, and who pays the bribe money, and who does the lobbing.
You are holding up "legal rights" as if it were an absolute perfect standard, that is not subject to corruption, and represents the opinions of the majority, and that those opinions are not influenced by any misinformation (FUD) from the paid media.
QUOTATION: (and maybe it's not contravening any copyright laws)
We're take most facts found in The Times as gospel, since they have more fact-checkers than we do. And so we present - courtesy of them - our favorite 10 most ridiculous laws. 1. In London, it is illegal to flag down a taxi if you have the plague.
In Kentucky, it is illegal to carry a concealed weapon more than six-feet long.
In Florida, unmarried women who parachute on Sundays can be jailed.
In Alabama, it is illegal for a driver to be blindfolded while driving a vehicle.
In Ohio, it is against state law to get a fish drunk.
In the UK, a pregnant woman can legally relieve herself anywhere she wants - even, if she so requests, in a policeman's helmet.
In Indonesia, the penalty for masturbation is decapitation.
In Bahrain, a male doctor may legally examine a woman's genitals but is forbidden from looking directly at them during the examination; he may only see their reflection in a mirror.
In San Salvador, drunk drivers can be punished by death before a firing squad.
In the UK, a man who feels compelled to urinate in public can do so only if he aims for his rear wheel and keeps his right hand on his vehicle.
Maybe Stallman is onto something about what laws are beneficial to the public at large, and what laws are not. What are the laws that only benefit a privileged few? The ones that Bill Gates tried to maintain, because these primarily benefited only Bill.
For all you cheap knuckle-heads out there who want free software, get a life and a job! There's plenty of free software out there now. If people don't want to pay for the use of software, then they shouldn't use it. And why does Microsoft have to provide free software, Apple doesn't give you free copies of their OS or their other utilities. Get real!!
WRT the open letter,
It is morally wrong to prevent people from copying your software. It may be that you have the legal right but that doesn't make it morally right.
Stallman's interpretation of the letter is somewhat inflammatory but entirely accurate. Gates was saying that users had no choice but accept and use the software he produced and because of that lack of choice he argued that it was in their interests not to copy the existing software because then there would be no more software.
re: Sorpigal
It is morally wrong to prevent people from copying your software. It may be that you have the legal right but that doesn't make it morally right.
I get the feeling open source fanatics like you have no idea WTF you are talking about.
Do you have any idea why the GPL is enforceable? Think about this, do you have ANY idea?
The GPL is enforceable because of COPYRIGHT laws! Yes the same laws that prevent you from copying software are the same laws that ensure the GPL and any software that uses the GPL remains free. Copyright says that you have the right to determine the rules of how your IP, yes IP is used.
Get rid of copyright and you get rid of the teeth that is the GPL. Sure then you can copy adhoc, but companies can come in and use GPL software however they please.
So now I ask, which do you want? I personally want copyright so that my Open Source licenses have teeth! BTW I am an Apache license advocate...
Maybe you do not know everything. Last year Mr Gates "donated" to Colombia $ 7 million for "children's education", but in Microsoft's license, just to avoid being put more free software in schools. Now our country pays $ 2 per license to MS in schools instead of the $ 15 paid before to MS, this may seem a "large charity action", but in reality is an unethical business in the long term; is clear that the child would be dependent on this software, MS Software, not free software (software NO libre), increasing reliance on the next generation of software company of Mr. Gates. Our politicians are very corrupt and this little mind. We do not want charity, we want access to knowledge, to be free (libres).
Stallman is right. If you read news articles over the years you can see how the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has generously given money to places such as India and Africa, to combat aids and malaria; and you can also see that this giving of money is linked to deals Microsoft has made in these areas. Bill gates, at the time his foundation gave money to India, said that India was of vital strategic importance. At the same time, Microsoft helped india become locked into its products and spent millions more on that than the Gates foundation did on combating malaria (at exactly the same time).
Author doesn't know a shit.
In our country Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is used to corrupt politicians. Microsoft software gets donated for new social projects to guarantee vendor lockin and piss the last cent out of it afterward.
It's astonishing to me still, that citizens have no idea what a "foundation" is for. It's for avoiding taxes. NOT CHARITY. The charity angle is just an excuse.
If tax laws didn't allow for LESS taxes on the wealth buried inside foundations, then foundations would not exist at all, hence charitable contributions from the wealthy would hardly exist at the current level.
People watch the Gates toss $1 million here and $500K there, and think that they're being oh-so-generous. They're not. The wealth in their foundation is just so MONSTROUS that these amounts only SEEM large. But even donations counted as expenses combined with foundation taxation, are STILL less for the founders than it that wealth had been taxed straight. That was the entire point.
The Gates may enjoy giving that money away, but in the background, they know full well that their tax rate is lower as a result. So, please, people -- stop assuming these rich folk are so humanitarian or generous. Without tax laws tempting them, they would do a LOT less.
From under what rock did you crawl out of? Drama queen.
There are a LOT of correct observations in the comments here including the tax shelter mentioned above.
That's exactly what the B&M foundation was formed for. What most Americans don't know is that many pro athletes (and other wealthy individuals) form these same foundations (IRS 501c3) to shelter their income and all they have to do is utilize a small percentage of the revenue towards the stated goals of the organization as described to the IRS.
I'm also the president of a board for a 501c3 charter school so I know how they are structured and how they work. What most people don't know is that 501c3 status does NOT preclude you from making a profit. There are two types, a non-profit (B&M foundation) and a not for profit. The prior can make money and shelter it within the 501c3 (in a nut-shell).
The other half NO ONE has caught wind of yet (not even RMS) is that the B&M foundation has a large software development team who are actively developing the B&M eCharity platform to manage individual and corporate donations. The B&M foundation is actively pushing this solution at United Way and other large charitable organizations as a middle-man product to collect and manage donations, albeit for a nominal fee. You may say, ehhh.. it's still compulsory usage right? Not exactly... The B&M foundation is pushing hard and getting support.. When you have that kind of cash in the bank (B&M), organizations usually roll over and fall in line.
The CEO of a TX based United Way chapter let me know that this is a MAJOR concern for them because it would centralize charitable donations that Americans normally do through payroll deductions and that cash would then flow through this B&M foundation system. This now creates a vacuum for local charities since the donations would no longer go directly to them (i.e. the local charity chapter). The local charitable organization would have to go this "company" for their money minus the handling (extortion) fees.
Now you have the B&M foundation sitting in the middle of a $300 billion dollar transactional stream taking their cut which goes to the B&M foundation originally formed by Billy G and Warren Buffet to shelter their billions.
You seeing the bigger picture here?? The B&M foundation is not what it's billed as. It is a for profit center (run by a ruthless ex CEO) and they want YOUR money to go to them before going to the charity of YOUR choosing first.
Neosmart at it's best. Writing bullshit and getting ass-kicked by their own readers afterwards.
It is so funny how RMS cites the LA Times and this gets denounced as "rumors" by the author. If he would have a closer look, he would perhaps have noticed that BBC actually referenced the well-researched LA Times article in their Related Links section.
I thank RMS for giving this further insight. I didn't knew much about the practice of this foundation and now was pointed to valuable sources.
If the author of this blog post would have been a little bit open minded, he would also show some interest in these. Instead he decided to do a rushed bashing, which didn't add any new facts to the issue at all. It is very common: For everything that RMS has published so far, there were always people who didn't bother to read it with their full attention. Instead they already had their opinion set and just looked if they could find further "proof" of it.
Honestly, if BillG had the charity fund for purely IRS-related reasons, why would he abandon his post at Microsoft to work at the B&M Foundation?
(Don't tell me he no longer enjoys work or its because he knows MS is on the road to failure - Microsoft is his baby, and he loves it.... and it'll be his legacy)
There is a little confusion about software copyright and the letters from Bill Gates to hobbyists in 1976. No doubt Mr. Stallman's direct rhetoric is an easy target, but please get beyond that. You state,
"Here Stallman is referring to Gates’ now-famous letter asking people illegally copying, distributing, and using Altair Basic to stop. Stallman somehow neglects to mention that – regardless of whether morally acceptable or not – Microsoft had the legal right to demand payment in exchange for their software."
The following sites have the letters from Gates to the Homebrew Compuer Club. Note that this club actively shared information in order to start the personal computer revolution.
http://www.digibarn.com/collections/newsletters/homebrew/V2_01/gatesletter.html http://www.startupgallery.org/gallery/notesViewer.php?ii=76_4&p=5
As you can see, Mr Gates simply refers to the copying and reuse of the interpreter code as "theft" and does not say anything about copyright infringement. Why not?
The site
http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise17.html
details the history of computer software copyright law in the U.S. In 1976, the Copyright Office accepted computer tapes as required registration of copyright for computer software programs. However, Micro-Soft at the time did not distribute the paper tapes independently from Altair. Copyright of computer software was still uncertain because of the idea that mathematical algorithms could not be copyrighted. Also, BASIC was invented not by Mr Gates and Paul Allen but at Dartmouth and it is not clear what Micro-Soft copied from earlier workers in order to prove originality--this point never arose. It was not until later that CONTU resolved some of the questions about copyrighting software, but at the time of these letters they were not resolved, and in point of fact as you can see from the letter's text, Mr Gates did not refer to copyright, and it is not certain that in spite of your assertions, he could have done so legally. It has always been strange that in order to use a copyrighted program on one's computer one must copy it into memory first, so there has always been difficulty in settling copyright for software Perhaps you are extrapolating 1998 back to 1976?
A second point related to the letters is apparent from these quotations:
In the first letter, Mr. Gates writes, "Who can afford to do professional work for nothing? What hobbyist can put 3-man years into programming, finding all bugs, documenting his product and distribute for free?" Mr Gates felt, and still apparently feels, that good software must be "professional," that is, by large centralized companies of experts, and never by small, decentralized self-assemblies of parttime volunteers such as the Homebrew club or Richard Stallman's followers. He felt that the software must be sold in order at least to pay the labor, or it would not be done. You can judge for yourself whether Mr Gates's prediction has become true or not, or whether or not Mr. Stallman was justified in responding to the challenge.
And in the second letter, Mr. Gates wrote, "In discussing software, I don't want to leave out the most important aspect, viz., the exchange of those programs less complex than interpreters or compilers that can be written by hobbyists and shared at little or no cost. I think this is the foreseeable future, literally thousands of such programs will be available through user libraries." Mr. Gates was evidently not in principle opposed to users writing and sharing programs, as the free software movement has done, but simply asked to be rewarded for writing the BASIC interpreter used to write and run the programs. One of the responses from the Homebrew club was to announce the development of a TinyBASIC interpreter for free, and of course Mr. Stallman spent even more time writing the gcc compiler for C under Gnu, which made possible all the "programs less complex than interpreters or compilers" running under Gnu and then Gnu/Linux, and that were indeed released for free. Of course, Mr. Gates when his company later sold compiled programs for sale did resort to releasing them without source code, thus making them not so useful for those who wanted to reuse them on their computers. You can judge for yourself whether Mr. Gates's second letter was sufficient response to the hobbyists.
Finally, there is the matter of the foundation and medical work it sponsors. You seem to think Mr. Stallman's remarks were simply spiteful and irrelevant, but it is part and parcel of the difference between the philosophies represented by Mr. Gates and Mr. Stallman. The Gates Foundation is very powerful and some in the business of delivering medical care to Africa believe it might have too strong an influence on decisions such as whether or which vaccine or treatment should be made available for malaria and other diseases, or other problems in other areas. Money might decide, but in this case the money is not really in the hands of the scientists nor the sufferers, but some remote Western foundation. Can it be trusted any more than Microsoft can be trusted in the software field? Or, instead, should the money and effort be directed from the bottom up rather than the top down, in a more decentralized way, similar to the free software movement that Mr. Stallman started? Ask yourself why it is still so difficult to direct research toward preventing cancer instead of expensive drugs for cancer, is it a matter of money for corporate profit, or what?
One has to get beyond the personalities and the anger and think about the underlying issues, clarify the history, and promote discussion, as these issues from 1976 will not soon be resolved. Thanks for promoting the discussion here.
Bill Gates created his charity organization to give himself a better image. He won't stop trying to dominate the world with his proprietary operating systems. Bill Gates hasn't retired, he just works less hours now.
When we all depend in Windows, MS will have the power to control us as they see fit. I don't understand how some people idolize Microsoft and think they are a charitable organization. MS has no association with the Bill and Melinda Gates charity organization. And even though it does help MS, MS itself isn't a charity.
Their mission is to dominate the market, control it and squeeze as much money as they can out of it. Even if this means letting people pirate their software for a while or selling it for a ridiculously small amount of money just to rise it's popularity. Even if this means creating a whole charity organization to better their public image.
When MS has 100% market share, who will decide what's it's software's price? A market that is split fairly into several competitors will ultimately give the customer the best products and prices. I think as of today MS has an unfair amount of market share and hope someday the market will be more divided and competitive.
If you had a company wouldnt you want 100% market share of your business???
Argghh why can't people just accept the fact that Miscrosoft's first priority is, just like any other company out there, to make money? And of course they would want to donate to research which would ultimately benefit them later on.....it's a win-win.
Well, I like free software, and I donate a loooot (!) to those who do it, but I'm starting to become very annoyed with this conspiracy theories on Gates (and now the man's wife ??!, FFS!). I'm quiting Linux, bunch o' freaks.
Sorry.
/takes out tin foil hat/
Don't know who Richard Stallman is, but being from Seattle and having had dealings with Microsoft and local knowledge of the Gates family, have to believe Stallman is one big slime bucket. The Gates family, starting with Bill's father & mother, were and are people truly concerned for and with their community. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation extended that concern to the world. If Mr. Stallman believes otherwise, he obviously has his head where that ol' sun don't shine Having worked in a number of programs to help seniors and others learn computers, I was the recipient of Microsoft's assistance on a number of programs. It was given freely and without strings. There is no doubt Microsoft is in business to make money and they play hardball, as do most successful companies in this business. But the company also does a lot of good for a lot of people without looking for a lot of media attention.
Than you NeoSmart for exposing Stallman for being the bottom feeder he is.
He is correct in the very roots of the argument. As a matter of fact it is the roots of which that B. Gates had taken advantage of to attain a chargable product in the software industry. One in which he created. However, HE nor anyone else in fact, has the right to change the law for others to forcefully follow suite. And this has in fact happened and is perpetuating. The GPL is facilitating advancment and awareness, not as fast as popular litigatory forces though. the laws have been manipulated toward monopolization. This actually is or was originally an illegality. This reminds me of the drug companies and pill hill$. The same method. The goal is to copyright the necessity item. One that everyone actually needs. Fact: Closed source benefits from their colsed source world and the open source world as well. Open source only benefits from the later. You see it a door that swings 1 way. Microsoft can steal from you and does. You'd think they'd return the the favor? Americans do not understand their own laws! Americans do not understand their own rights. This is facilitating the slow and steady removal of them!
Did any one research the real purpose of the so called charitable foundation. Is it so aulturistic and philanthropic after all? Or is it as the ones in the financial know indicate, just a tax shelter for preserving capital, and it is really the tax payer "again" who really pays????
It's most certainly an altruistic organization.
I want to open NGO like you foundation. if you kindly help me about this perpose that is fully computerise
Acually i want to serve to my country that Bangladesg computerise program and prosper in every poor men, women, boy, girls organizise by your Foundation If you kindly help me about this. You can every think becouise you are number one rich men. You have ability to the every poor country for develope. So i have requet to you please kindly help or attantion to me about this. i have back ground i have completed master degree in management and have worked in The City Bank Ltd for 15 years in bangladesh. I have knowledge about computer Banking and others. You are king of the World.Your microsoft is a bigest company in the World. If you kindly help me about this so i can prosper every poor men, women, boy, girls organizise by your Foundation in my country.
Thanking you Md. Rezaul Karim
It is truly dumb of you to criticize Stallman for talking about Bill Gates & his wife (and the so called foundation) when he was asked by BBC to write about Gates' retirement. And for all of you who compare 'Free Software' with a 'Free Straw with a juice'-Thats exactly what Microsoft does (Refer: Express editions of MS.) (You get a straw which has no use without the juice)
'Free' in 'Free Software' can be compared to 'Freedom of Speech. ' All of us quote from interesting phrases/sentences of famous people, be it from their speeches/books or even articles. Would you like to pay copyright charges everytime you reuse the phrase?
Acknowledging the work is acceptable and a welcomed gesture, but do you expect to be charged for repeating the statements just becouse you liked them?
I seriously hope you Prop. Software freaks rethink on how much of 'Pirated content' you have in your very systems?. I bet you either carry pirated proprietary software or free software.
I challenge you to renounce Free softwares in your system and buy all Proprietary software.
Well, Ubuntu is much better than Windows. Me and my friends has switch to Ubuntu. Why should we debate about what has Bill done. Let's leave him alone.
This is my opinion. No offence.
Linus Torvalds is a great example of the Open Source Software community members should think and behave. He uses open source because it does his job for him pretty well and keeps his bank account in great shape. It is nothing personal against Microsoft or other big-name proprietary software companies, engineers or users. It is not political fight; especially to the extend of trying to hurt charity. I am a heavy user of proprietary software and create software using it; only because it helps me do my job well and puts bread on the table. I respect Richard Stallman brillance as an organizer and programmer, but his ideas on Open Source is ridiculous.
First of all stallman is not part of the open source movement, he is part of the Free Software Movement. He never had a problem with charging for software, by free he means it should respect your freedom. Microsoft have being knowing to bully countries such as Brazil In our modern world we have over capitalism, not everything should be for sale. The economy works against humanity and not for it (poor people get poorer)
Microsoft are evil, they are hypocrites. Microsoft does things to hurt the countries their own funded foundation work for Stallman is eccentric at times but those goes for all true geniuses. He stands up for what he believes in
The article you wrote is a shame really. Next time do a little research. Otherwise you will find yourself showing off how ignorant you are.
Don't even think that this post is pure rant. It is not meant to insult the author of this article. It's rather an advice. It is evident that this article is misleading, and that the author of it is completely misinformed.
I'm very sorry to say so - future will tell us that Mr. Stallman is right.
It's not the intention of the gates-foundation that's bad - it's the way they're interfering into what other organizations are doing.
How much Taxes did Microsoft pay in the past? Not much - i can be sure about that. In fact for no taxes - the foundation has only to spend a few % of it's income - and the worst of it all - Bill still gets control of what's inside the foundation - the microsoft shares and tons of other financial stuff.
Why is his rich friend Warren B. interested in this foundation? Maybe for tax evasion too? If you give money away you don't want to stay in control - that's real wellfare!
I disagree. Look more closely. Most of his arguments are correct, even though they don't seem to at first sight.
Is wireless really needed for anything? Do you need to use a web browser to use the internet? Are you sure it is harmful to be fucked when you want to be fucked? Does spending $287m mean BG cannot possibly have spent $3000m more on business?
By the way; if you want a reason to hate the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation all you need to do is check out the delivery date of the food sent to those countries You'll find that it is about the same time the local food supply is ready for harvest.
It's a year old article, but I suspect you'll be getting new visitors (like me) after it was just linked to in Bryan Lunduke's blog. Looking at a years worth of responses is amazing. Evil? Eugenics!? But even in this cesspool Alex Belits post of July 6 2008 deserves some sort of special mention. "Scale of wrongdoing that come close to Nazi 'accomplishments'" Wow! Your Jewish ancestors may have had to face extinction in Hitler's death camps, but you, you have endured the nightmare of living in a world where a man got rich selling software without including the source code.
"Directly responsible for at least 2-3 decades of delay in development of computer technology" Right, because nothing has happened in the field of computer technology in the last two or three decades Microsoft has been in business. Let me remind you the FSF started in 1984. Why haven't they advanced technology to the point where "hundreds of millions of lives would be saved" yet?