Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Richard Stallman Comments On Valve For Linux

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The freedom of free software allows you to charge for it. You can do a kickstarter like project to pay for the development; you could also charge later for services, such as providing an official server, or for the main developer to address your needs.

    Content could also use a different license, such as Creative Commons.

    The position of Stallman is consistent to his philosophy, and its redundant to even make an article about it.

    Stallman is not in the position to promote Linux, his goal is to promote Free Software, Linux just happens to be a single piece in that ecosystem. Perhaps you should try asking Linus Torvalds instead?

    Stallman is not wrong, by the way. But in the end it is your call if you want to use proprietary software. You are being warned, that's all.

    Comment


    • I like to compare Free Software with the Internet itself. First there was an exchange of information going on, then there was html to easily share even more information and then the market discovered the internet and now we are tracked by IP address and watched which websites we visit to make sure they do not loose their market or even harm it

      First there was software, which was freely shared. Then there was some blocke who said, hey you cannot copy my software. Now we have hardware, which watches data on our computers, to make sure we cannot copy software any more.

      Comment


      • Honestly, I am not too bothered about getting the src of games opened.

        I kinda see games as art, and you wouldnt want to rip a Picasso to shreds to see what paint combinations he used etc...

        However, what really grinds on me is the DRM. For example:

        1) Imagine if you bought a painting for a lot of money and you couldnt move it from one museum to another when desired.

        Or perhaps a more literal example...

        2) Imagine if your painting was locked in a completely impenetrable metal box that could only be opened as long as some greedy idiots activation server remained online.

        So while I feel that proprietary software does drive innovation. DRM just leaves legitimate users / customers with sod all at the end of the day. (The pirates are fine however).

        Comment


        • Of course, proprietary development drives innovation. It is just that open development drives innovation much more efficiently.

          Games may very well prove to be the last bastion of proprietary development, but also here I expect to see large changes over the next years. There are already numerous examples of open technologies making game development more effective. OpenGL and SDL are two prominent examples. Without OpenGL, every platform would have it's own graphics stack (just like windows/xbox and ps3 has), now that is not very efficient, is it? Proprietary development have two major shortcomings. One is that every competitor typically needs to re-program almost everything, the second is that it typically leads to one dominant player (i.e., monopoly). For games we still have competition with multiple large vendors, but one may question just how long that can last (seems Gabe and Valve see those dangers right now). Actually, games is just about the only software category left with lively competition among proprietary vendors.

          I see also here people comparing free software to communism. This is totally mistaken. Communism was about "giving according to abilities and receiving according to needs", free software is the total opposite, namely, "giving according to needs and receiving according to abilities". This fact has become increasingly obvious to me over the years. Actually, the monopolies almost always caused by proprietary software development is far more resemblant of communism. When free software enters a software category, competition, diversity and innovation is abundant.

          The main difficulty today is finding good business models for open development. I hope this will improve the coming years as knowledge about the benefits hopefully improves.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by RealNC View Post
            In the Soviet Union, everything was required to be in the Public Domain, and your work could not be considered private property.

            We don't live in the Soviet Union. Stallman wishes we did. Too bad for him.
            How about you talk about Soviet Union ONLY if you lived there and STFU otherwise, really....

            Because in Soviet Union everything was property of the communist party. HUGE "private" property.

            And one more, you and whole world LIVES FROM AND DEPENDS UPON a communist country. A country that was complete wrack, yet managed to take first place in near 50 years thanks to communism.

            True freedom has nothing to do with democracy. Take current Russia, you have best "democracy" on the planet ever. At least official internal TV says so. Same with US.

            Democracy has nothing to do with economy model, capitalism, or communism, or anything else.

            Its all about if person is really free, and if the state model actually helps its citizens.


            That said, information is completely different thing as material world and hence, for information, it is much better to be free. Where everything materiel is much better with capitalistic approach. Even so, probably only until huge computer can calculate and predict the best prices for each good - then communism is back again as better (only to some degree though).

            Now ask Stallman what he means by his "definition of freedom": A freedom from cost, or a freedom of information, and be surprised.

            Additionally, even if you (incorrectly) force-project Stallman's view on freedom of information into communist view of freedom of material, you will still have problems to prove why communism sucks - just look what a boost USSR had in all directions during Stalin until WW2.
            Last edited by crazycheese; 07-31-2012, 03:08 PM.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by crazycheese View Post
              That said, information is completely different thing as material world and hence, for information, it is much better to be free. Where everything materiel is much better with capitalistic approach. Even so, probably only until huge computer can calculate and predict the best prices for each good - then communism is back again as better (only to some degree though).
              Information is not a higher-order (capital) good, because it is not consumed by use, and is never a limiting factor of production. Thus use of information is inherently non-rivalrous and requires no rational allocation among various potential uses.


              In regard to prices computers can't work. Human Action. Ludwig von Mises, p. 211

              There are monetary units and there are measurable physical units of various economic goods and of many--but not of all-services bought and sold. But the exchange ratios which we have to deal with are permanently fluctuating. There is nothing constant and invariable in them. They defy any attempt to measure them. They are not facts in the sense in which a physicist calls the establishment of the weight of a quantity of copper a fact. They are historical events, expressive of what happened once at a definite instant and under definite circumstances. The same numerical exchange ratio may appear again, but it is by no means certain whether this will really happen and, if it happens, the question is open whether this identical result was the outcome of preservation of the same circumstances or of a return to them rather than the outcome of the interplay of a very different constellation of price-determining factors. Numbers applied by acting man in economic calculation do not refer to quantities measured but the exchange ratios as they are expected--on the basis of understanding--to be realized on the markets of the future to which alone all acting is directed and which alone counts for acting man.

              Comment


              • In long term, closed source will be forbidden on OS level.

                Intelligent or clever enough software, embedded or integrated with hardware systems and vehicles (robots, drones, automated land/air craft),
                can be physically harmful to human existence if they are CLOSED source, proprietary and under one producer, company or government control.

                Therefore it is of the most importance for software to be open source, to help humanity continue the progress
                even in the most harsh events and cataclysms , because humanity already had such moments when there were just around 30 women available to reproduce in one moment.

                Robots should be made only with fully open source and audited software, to make sure they are made in a way that does not allow them to do something bad to human kind and humans, or in inaction allow something bad to happen to them.

                Also , Windows 8 and Microsoft forces Hardware (ARM based and other) to defy computer and computer device users
                of choosing and installing some other Operating system, by only Microsoft Windows, that is closed and unethical.

                Stop buying, import and production of hardware that is "for only one Operating system" and does not allow freedom of user.

                In the long term, problems with closed/proprietary OSes and systems will lead to FORBIDDING all closed source operating systems
                for certain types of hardware devices (See: Robots)

                Comment


                • Wow I didn't read many posts so this has probably been covered but just in case................

                  RMS isn't against people making money off software. Something like a kickstart'ed game that then goes open source & DRM free after being fully funded is his idea of how things should work... The game is paid for and it then in turn is actually free. So stop with the drama spouting all the nonsense of how he wants things like communist Russian and blah blah blah. His view point is probably the best overall considering all parties win not just one or the other like you (those with small minds) can't seem to grasp. He isn't against donating money or paying for a completed program as long as it's free in the end.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by RealNC View Post
                    In the Soviet Union, everything was required to be in the Public Domain, and your work could not be considered private property.

                    We don't live in the Soviet Union. Stallman wishes we did. Too bad for him.
                    Stallman:

                    Isn't it ironic that the proprietary software developers call us communists? We are the ones who have provided for a free market, where they allow only monopoly. if the users chooses this proprietary software package, he then falls into this monopoly for support the only way to escape from monopoly is to escape from proprietary software, and that is what the free software movement is all about. We want you to escape and our work is to help you escape. We hope you will escape to the free world. The free world is the new continent in cyberspace that we have built so we can live here in freedom. It's impossible to live in freedom in the old world of cyberspace, where every program has its feudal lord that bullies and mistreats the users. So, to live in freedom we have to build a new continent. Because this is a virtual continent, it has room for everyone, and there are no immigration restrictions. And because there were never indigenous peoples in cyberspace, there is also no issue of taking away their land. So everyone is welcome in the free world, come to the free world, live with us in freedom. The free software movement aims for the liberation of cyberspace and everyone in it.
                    Source:
                    https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Ramiliez View Post
                      The word publish means to make public. Requiring published works to be in the public domain is like requiring water to flow downhill. The public domain is the natural state of published works. All other states require an application of some forceful intervention.

                      That being said stallman does support the idea of copyright to promote creative works, though with a reduced term and focused primarily on commercial copying or modification.
                      Last edited by WorBlux; 08-04-2012, 12:13 AM.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by WorBlux View Post
                        The word publish means to make public. Requiring published works to be in the public domain is like requiring water to flow downhill. The public domain is the natural state of published works. All other states require an application of some forceful intervention.
                        No, published works automatically get copyright as soon as they are "fixed in tangible form", whatever that means for the particular medium. Registration is only needed for punitive damages. This is the case in every country that has signed the standard copyright protections treaties, i.e. pretty much every country in the world.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by TheBlackCat View Post
                          No, published works automatically get copyright as soon as they are "fixed in tangible form", whatever that means for the particular medium. Registration is only needed for punitive damages. This is the case in every country that has signed the standard copyright protections treaties, i.e. pretty much every country in the world.
                          While none of your factual claims are false here, none of them actually contradict my statements. Copyright does not exist in either natural or customary law. The existence of copyright relies on government interference in the form of statutes and enforcement thereof. The fact that almost every nation interferes in such manner makes it no less an interference upon the natural state of affairs.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by WorBlux View Post
                            While none of your factual claims are false here, none of them actually contradict my statements. Copyright does not exist in either natural or customary law. The existence of copyright relies on government interference in the form of statutes and enforcement thereof. The fact that almost every nation interferes in such manner makes it no less an interference upon the natural state of affairs.
                            Yeah, to the same extent every other law "relies on government interference in the form of statutes and enforcement thereof". That is what a law is.

                            Copyright only became an issue when large-scale copying became an issue, with the invention of the printing press. Prior to that there was no need because hand-copying books was far too slow and expensive.

                            It is like arguing that speed limits are "an interference upon the natural state of affairs" because cars didn't exist until recently. There were vehicles before then, but they were not fast enough to be much of an issue. Similarly, there were creative works before the printing press, but copying was not fast or cheap enough to be much of an issue. Technological change often leads to legal change. Are pilot licenses "an interference upon the natural state of affairs" too?

                            How far back does a law have to go for you to accept it? It has to be at least 400 years, since as far as I can tell that is when the roots of what would become copyright law first appeared.
                            Last edited by TheBlackCat; 08-07-2012, 03:19 AM.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by TheBlackCat View Post
                              Yeah, to the same extent every other law "relies on government interference in the form of statutes and enforcement thereof". That is what a law is.

                              There are legal systems that exist and that have existed outside of any state institution. A law is simply an enforced norm. A social system requires peace between man and man, and thus customs arise to preserve it outside, and even sometime is spite of state systems. The English Common law operated for centuries before any attempt was make to co-opt it by the state.

                              Copyright only became an issue when large-scale copying became an issue, with the invention of the printing press. Prior to that there was no need because hand-copying books was far too slow and expensive.

                              It is like arguing that speed limits are "an interference upon the natural state of affairs" because cars didn't exist until recently. There were vehicles before then, but they were not fast enough to be much of an issue. Similarly, there were creative works before the printing press, but copying was not fast or cheap enough to be much of an issue. Technological change often leads to legal change. Are pilot licenses "an interference upon the natural state of affairs" too?

                              How far back does a law have to go for you to accept it? It has to be at least 400 years, since as far as I can tell that is when the roots of what would become copyright law first appeared.
                              Law is simply an enforced norm. Social order requires peace between man and man. Thus outside and sometimes in spite of a state you see customs form for the preservation of property and reduction of violence. The English Common Law operated for centuries before it was coopted by the state.

                              Copyright began as a system of political censorship. Mass-distributed letters and pamphlets made the government look bad and fomented unrest, thus publishers were required to get a copy right before publishing any work. Onlylater did someone claim that a limited monopoly on such works may serve to increase the incentive for creativity. This is however a dubious claim at best, which more often fails under systematic analysis than it is supported.

                              For speed limits, there is a customary and natural obligation to operate conveyances at reasonable and prudent speeds. (via torts of negligence). A specific number as a limit is not, but can at least be said to be grounded in it. It is only one step removed.

                              Pilot's licences are an interference, however customary system would likely look unfavorably on a person who caused damage by operating a dangerous machine with no training whatsoever. That requirement is about two steps removed.

                              Customary law is capable of, and in fact has adopted to technology, and many statues are arguable rooted therein. It is rather the statutory forms that are fragile and liable to become obsolete.

                              To be natural I would consider something to a subset of those things common to customary legal system, or based directly on one of those principles. The idea of copyright however is not based on preventing harm, but on creating privileged on the argument that it generates some social benefit..

                              Also no the specific argument that I was responding to; that only a communistic system would eschew copyright, when in fact the freest social systems that you could point to or imagine have no copyright systems. Copyright may in fact fit into a category with communism. A rejection or abrogation of customary forms and wisdom for an alleged, but yet unproven social benefit.
                              Last edited by WorBlux; 08-07-2012, 08:00 AM.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by WorBlux View Post
                                Law is simply an enforced norm. Social order requires peace between man and man. Thus outside and sometimes in spite of a state you see customs form for the preservation of property and reduction of violence. The English Common Law operated for centuries before it was coopted by the state.
                                You do realize that most countries do not follow the common law system, right? Pretty much only countries conqu*ahem*colonized by Britain follow common law. Statutory law the system is the legal system for well over a majority of the world.

                                Originally posted by WorBlux View Post
                                Copyright began as a system of political censorship. Mass-distributed letters and pamphlets made the government look bad and fomented unrest, thus publishers were required to get a copy right before publishing any work.
                                You are confusing publishing license, which was government control over publishing anything, from copyright, which is author control over publishing of their own work. They are two entirely different things, for two entirely different purposes, and existing in parallel for a while. The government gains nothing from copyright, since it gives authors, rather than the government itself, ownership of the work.

                                Originally posted by WorBlux View Post
                                To be natural I would consider something to a subset of those things common to customary legal system, or based directly on one of those principles. The idea of copyright however is not based on preventing harm, but on creating privileged on the argument that it generates some social benefit..
                                The same could be said of any ownership rights. Customary law has provided people with ownership of their own works for thousands of years. Common law actually did provide people with control over first publication of their works, although not later publications. However, I wouldn't consider that to be a big jump.

                                Originally posted by WorBlux View Post
                                Also no the specific argument that I was responding to; that only a communistic system would eschew copyright, when in fact the freest social systems that you could point to or imagine have no copyright systems.
                                Examples, please.

                                Originally posted by WorBlux View Post
                                Copyright may in fact fit into a category with communism.
                                You need to justify this. Communism as normally practiced is government ownership of the means of production. In theory it would involve people freely giving others what they need. Neither is remotely similar to copyrights, which is still private ownership

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X