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
[… 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…]
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.
[…is Richard Stallman seriously suggesting that it?s right to illegally obtain
copyrighted 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.
[…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.]
Again, he’s not saying that Gates should have given away his software for free.
[…contributed as much to the tech community as Bill Gates has.]
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 😛
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.
“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.”
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”.
“…is Richard Stallman seriously suggesting that it?s right to illegally obtain copyrighted software?”
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.
“It?s one thing to say that Gates should never have charged for his software…”
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.
“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.”
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.
“…a respected figure in the open source community…”
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:
“…even if it means spreading FUD…”
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.