Let's not get ahead of ourselves. Stallman is cool and everything but he is NOT 100% right. Most of us here, for instance, do not believe it is unethical to create "proprietary software". There is still a lot of basic philosophy on which to contest Stallman.
You may disagree with Stallman's philosophy (many do, me too). But his predicitions WERE spot on, and they were made more than 30 years ago.
He predicted DRM for consumer media, and that DRM violations will carry a harsh punishment. As the laws are written (and occasionally practiced), he was more than spot-on.
He predicted being unable to run unapproved software on commodity hardware you own. This has started happening with iPhone/iPad and somewhat with Win7 and (boot locked) Android devices. This post is about it coming to a PC near you in the near future via Win8 UEFI Secure Boot requirements.
In the beginning, you'll have to pay more to get hardware that can run anything you fancy, and it some point you might not be able to.
I'd say his predictions were right. Philosophy and ethics is never a well defined right or wrong, so I'm not sure what you are arguing with.
Those were not predictions. Those things were already happening -- to paraphrase, the rest of the world got caught up in the future of 30 years ago.
The "F* u nvidia" seems also to catch on slowly in Finland ->
"there was a disturbance that they needed to take care of. The officer then asked what the disturbance was and the faculty member relented - they were worried that there would be an incident, but that it hadn't yet happened." -- http://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/rms-ati-protest.html
DRM is as old as the floppy. Frequently, bad sectors were created on the original media and the software checked for those bad sectors. If you copied the software, you couldn't copy the bad sectors, so the software wouldn't load.
That's a very distant cousin to DRM: if you had two machines, you could just move the floppy or dongle between them (or lend them to a friend, or resell them). You cannot do this with your DRMd music or ebooks. Furthermore, your software and data were usable even if the authorization server went down. (google play4sure if you are not familiar with a modern counter example ).
Furthermore, quaid software's "Copywrite" and central point's option board were able to copy just about everything, and we're legally sold and marketed.
French and US 3-strike accusation-based penalty is very much in line with what stallman was describing. copy protection of the 80's isn't.
The guy deserves credit for quite accurately predicting a non-trivial future.
According to Wikipedia, Stallman wrote "the right to read" in 1997, not 1985:
"The Right to Read" is a short story by Richard Stallman, the founder of the Free Software Foundation, which was first published in 1997 in Communications of the ACM.
That said, I remember several copy protection measures where en vogue for games, on Amiga and Atari, and even business software. It wasn't called DRM at the time, but DRM is just an acronym describing any similar practice, not a specific technology.
From Wikipedia we also learn: "A very early implementation of DRM was the Software Service System (SSS) devised by the Japanese engineer Ryoichi Mori in 1983 [135] and subsequently refined under the name superdistribution. The SSS was based on encryption, with specialized hardware that controlled decryption and also enabled payments to be sent to the copyright holder."
For some reason, I remembered reading it already in 1992, that should show about trusting my memory...
Still, he was discussing these things before "The right to read" (in which the ideas were well enough crystalized to put into literature), and modern DRM is inline with "right-to-read" (e.g. Japanese penalties passed this week) and dissimilar to anything that was there (in theory) before 2000 and (in practice) before 2005.
> That said, I remember several copy protection measures where en vogue for games, on Amiga and Atari, and even business software. It wasn't called DRM at the time, but DRM is just an acronym describing any similar practice, not a specific technology.
I see a huge difference between software copy restriction (a.k.a "protection") and DRM. With copy restriction, you owned your copy and could do anything you wanted with it, including lending and reselling it. Many of these schemes would still let you make a backup, so long as the dongle/original was available for a 1 second check. That is, the restriction was on distribution.
Modern DRM restricts use.
> From Wikipedia we also learn: "A very early implementation of DRM was the Software Service System (SSS) devised by the Japanese engineer Ryoichi Mori in 1983 [135] and subsequently refined under the name superdistribution. The SSS was based on encryption, with specialized hardware that controlled decryption and also enabled payments to be sent to the copyright holder."
That's more in line with modern DRM. But Japan had always been in the future :)
There is no good reason to deny anyone the four basic Freedoms. The world
will eventually realize this, and get rid of proprietary software for good, in
addition to all the other horrors RMS has accurately predicted and warned us
about for over three decades.
Too bad people didn't listen, continue to trample everyone's Freedoms under
their foots for their petty selfish greed while having the audacity to assert
their actions to be perfectly ethical. We are currently seeing where this has
lead us, and it is the duty of every good man or woman to do anything in their
power to stop it, lest evil will triumph.
> There is no good reason to deny anyone the four basic Freedoms.
Sure there is. First good reason: Provides the ability to turn a profit on the sale of software licenses, which is a tried and true method for producing better quality consumer software than we've ever seen from OSS products.
> Too bad people didn't listen, continue to trample everyone's Freedoms under their foots for their petty selfish greed while having the audacity to assert their actions to be perfectly ethical.
I write closed-source software, and sell it to people that want to buy it. If they prefer OSS solutions, that's fine -- they're under no obligation to buy.
They want what I'm selling.
If making a decent wage while giving people what they want is evil, well, call me Satan.
> ... it is the duty of every good man or woman to do anything in their power to stop it, lest evil will triumph.
Yeah, this right here? This is why I can't stand the GPLers.
>Provides the ability to turn a profit on the sale of software licenses,
which is a tried and true method for producing better quality consumer
software than we've ever seen from OSS products.
a) "Tried and true" does not mean it will work forever. It's also bullshit to
sell copies of non-scarce resources. Besides, you can sell Free software.
Your argument is invalid.
b) "better quality [...] than ever seen from OSS products" is bullcrap, and
you know it. There's a few select niche markets where proprietary software is still
entrenched (eg, Graphic Design), but this too will change. Also, if you don't like
something or you feel like a feature is missing, stop complaining and start contributing.
>I write closed-source software, and sell it to people that want to buy it.
And again you are missing the fact that this neither requires your software to be
proprietary nor does it mean you need to trample on your users' Freedoms. If they
want what you are writing, they will still want it if it's Free (as in Speech).
>If making a decent wage while giving people what they want is evil, well, call me Satan.
Making a decent wage with unethical practices is still evil. The circumstances do not
matter. You're essentially saying that the ability to turn a profit somehow excuses
wrongdoing. It doesn't.
>Yeah, this right here? This is why I can't stand the GPLers.
Hate us all you want, in the end we are right and we'll eventually win. :)
> a) "Tried and true" does not mean it will work forever. It's also bullshit to sell copies of non-scarce resources. Besides, you can sell Free software. Your argument is invalid.
It works now, and as of yet, there's been no better model demonstrated, despite no lack of trying.
> And again you are missing the fact that this neither requires your software to be proprietary nor does it mean you need to trample on your users' Freedoms. If they want what you are writing, they will still want it if it's Free (as in Speech).
If my users don't want me to trample on their "Freedoms", they don't have to buy my software.
> If my users don't want me to trample on their "Freedoms", they don't have to buy my software
This is true of most anything, but doesn't stop consumer protection laws from existing. Moreover, most people agree that consumer protection laws are reasonable and necessary.
Most consumer protection laws have to do with curtailing dishonest or misrepresentative behaviors -- eg, selling a defective product, misrepresenting product features, etc.
Yes. And a program you can't modify to suit your needs is defective. This isn't enshrined in the law at the moment, but it's the same idea.
However, my real point was just that people's being able to not buy your product is no defense: it doesn't work in consumer protection cases and shouldn't work here.
Moreover, consumer protection isn't just about dishonesty: even if you represent your product perfectly accurately, you still can't sell certain (mostly dangerous) things. For example, if you design a really cheap car and market it as "cheap but dangerous", you still can't sell it.
> Yes. And a program you can't modify to suit your needs is defective. This isn't enshrined in the law at the moment, but it's the same idea.
It's not defective according to the people buying it. That's what matters.
> For example, if you design a really cheap car and market it as "cheap but dangerous", you still can't sell it.
This analogy is not particularly applicable to consumer software, and applies mainly to liability. A lawyer would need to step in here, as I'm guessing neither of us are experts in consumer product liability.
I'm pretty sure it's not a matter of liability--it's simply against the law to sell a car without certain safety features (like airbags). Moreover, there are good reasons for a customer to not want airbags--they make the car heavier and that kills acceleration and handling.
So there is plenty of precedent--just because a customer would be fine with something (like less safety) does not necessarily justify it.
>If my users don't want me to trample on their "Freedoms", they don't have to buy my software.
They could most likely not make an informed choice, because you do not educate them
about denying them their freedom. And still there is no argument to do it.
> I don't see any other viable economically proven method to fund our consumer software development.
Apparently you have never heard of RedHat. You missed a billion dollar company. They release their software for free, as CentOS, as well. But they sell costumer support on top of that. It WORKS.
Do you consider Windows a consumer software or not? I see pretty much a big need of support needed for that one. Just look at all the forums dedicated to solving its shortcomings.
Hmm. Should Rovio sell Angry Birds support contracts?
Windows occupies a rather unique market position of ubiquity and scale, and its still debatable whether such a thing would be viable given the R&D costs in producing a modern desktop OS, mobile OS, programming languages and runtimes, Metro, etc.
I'm not a Windows expert, but it's pretty undeniable that Apple and MS pour bucket loads of cash into their respective platforms. Linux, on the desktop, has barely caught up to the last decade's state of the art, and in many places (such as graphics drivers), it relies on closed-source software.
Underneath it all is closed source hardware (like those graphics chipsets and proprietary processor cores). Nobody tends to complain about that, since spending millions on hardware development is out of reach. Making use of software source code is equally out of reach to nearly all users: thus, they just don't care.
>its still debatable whether such a thing would be viable given the R&D costs
in producing a modern desktop OS, mobile OS, programming languages and
runtimes, Metro, etc.
Bullshit. The estimated cost to redevelop the Linux kernel in a proprietary
environment exceeds 600 million USD, and has probably even reached the billion
USD mark by now.[1]. It's perfectly possible.
The only reason Windows is still so entrenched on the market are shady monopolist
tactics, intentional lock-in practices and closed, shitty formats such as the
Office pseudo-standard. In other words, the very things RMS warned about and which
the free software community is fighting against.
>Linux, on the desktop, has barely caught up to the last decade's state of
the art, and in many places (such as graphics drivers), it relies on
closed-source software.
Your ramblings are so dishonest it's cringe-worthy. GNU/Linux is perfectly viable
on the desktop. The greatest hurdle it faces is exactly the kind of FUD that
you are spreading.
As for the drivers: yes, and this is a problem. The evil of proprietary hardware
and closed specs is something that needs to go the way of the dodo, too, and
it needs to do so fast. We could have drivers vastly exceeding anything
proprietary if the specs for nVidia or ATI/AMD cards would be accessible. For
the record, the best graphic drivers available for GNU/Linux are for the Intel
Graphic chips, and they are perfectly free.
>a) "Tried and true" does not mean it will work forever. It's also bullshit to sell copies of non-scarce resources. Besides, you can sell Free software. Your argument is invalid.
While you technically can sell free software, you can't make much of a profit off of it in the current climate. Red Hat et al DO NOT make money off the software -- they make the money off incidentals like support and consulting. The software is a prerequisite, but if Linux went away, Red Hat could survive by switching its techs and consultant to whatever replaced it. People who make OSS do not make money off of their software directly.
This happens because Stallman believes that no creator should be granted a limited monopoly over the distribution of his product. This is a completely reasonable "freedom" to disavow; copyright has been around hundreds of years and is explicitly authorized in the US Constitution. You can easily argue that copyright has gone out of control, but the GPL essentially mandates removal of the profit-bearing portions of copyright by legally releasing your privilege to control distribution (and thus become the sole supplier).
Perhaps this would work better in a world where copyright didn't exist at all; then there'd be no exclusive right and the numbers wouldn't skew so deeply negative as compared to proprietary options.
Personally I fully believe computer users have a right to a readable copy of the code they expect to execute on their machines. I simply do not believe that there is a moral imperative that software vendors allow anyone and everyone to redistribute that package. If a vendor chooses to do this, that is fine and good, but I don't believe it's immoral to try to make some money developing complex software by restricting licensees and utilizing copyright law to a reasonable extent (i.e., as a limited monopoly on distribution intended to promote useful progress in science and the arts).
>I simply do not believe that there is a moral imperative that software
vendors allow anyone and everyone to redistribute that package.
The moral imperative here is not that they need to allow it - it's that
they can and should not be able to forbid it. You can't force someone to
share something, but neither can you stop others from doing so.
This is an argument against copyright. I think it's a rather extreme position. Copyright is useful as a concept even if it's gotten completely out of control.
The issue with the GPL is that it takes the most critical component of copyright away -- the ability to control the distribution of your work in any meaningful degree (e.g., by charging money for access to it). You can tinker with the copyright code to say that works transformed away from direct human readability (i.e. things that require a machine to be understood, like binary compiled code) are not copyrightable, requiring everyone to release source code, etc., but the premise of freedom 2 is neither self-evident or inviolable. In the real world, people have to make money, and without some form of intellectual property law, any digitized work immediately has an infinite supply, which will always usurp any level of demand no matter how significant, making it impossible to profit off of the digitized work directly.
I don't believe there's a moral requirement to allow everyone access to the fruits of your labor for free. If the software generates value for the end-user, it seems fair to expect some recompense for the work you've done. Why do you believe it is unfair to actually make money off the product you build? Do we see people giving grills away for free and attempting to make a living off of "selling support" for that grill?
