tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20054565.post1651830982079303296..comments2023-09-21T11:21:40.793-07:00Comments on bsdtalk: bsdtalk132 - Richard StallmanMrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01892092907807448908noreply@blogger.comBlogger46125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20054565.post-55422219881177604562008-12-15T18:56:00.000-08:002008-12-15T18:56:00.000-08:00It's good to see someone from another community re...It's good to see someone from another community respecting him enough to let him say what are the most important issues to him; Not what the larger linux community say he should find important.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20054565.post-88279119940122035802008-04-11T14:14:00.000-07:002008-04-11T14:14:00.000-07:00I patently didn't say that he started free softwar...I patently didn't say that he started free software..<BR/>Look at the text, you won't find it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20054565.post-82451720638040197082008-04-11T09:19:00.000-07:002008-04-11T09:19:00.000-07:00Martin said:I just want to tell you that Stallman'...Martin said:<I>I just want to tell you that Stallman's views are what made the Operating System possible and real. He started the whole thing, the philosophy and all. If there's anyone who's been there from start, it's him. Respect him please. Don't worship him, no one asks you to, but do respect him.</I><BR/><BR/>This is <B>patently</B> false. Bill Joy started distributing the original Berkeley Science Distribution in 1977; when he graduated he left behind a nearly complete free operating system, including his newly-invented Internet Protocol, the socket interface, 32-bit addressing with VM, along with a host of new utilities (heard of vi?). This was in 1982, two years before Stallman even started the FSF. <BR/><BR/>People make the argument that GNU is still more important because you still had to have an AT&T license to use BSD, but GNU was still using SunOS kernels to run their userland until Linux came out. By 1989, the only things left unreplaced in the BSD kernel source tree were a few include files, as decided by the AT&T lawsuit. If it hadn't been for that suit, everyone would probably be using 386BSD-derived programs instead of GNU-Linux.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20054565.post-45703451530364150792007-12-17T11:25:00.000-08:002007-12-17T11:25:00.000-08:00Actually,RMS' claim to *morality*, in light of wri...Actually,<BR/><BR/>RMS' claim to *morality*, in light of writings by Jaques Ellul, Ian Barbour, and others, sees the issue comprehensively, societally, and universally.<BR/><BR/>It's not just about code, it is about the social order. No Slashdot apologist can change that.<BR/><BR/>The GPL forces one to look for networks and donors like the BSD licenses might draw corporate donors based on lower development costs coupled with the possibility of proprietary copyright protection. A project only works with a "community" because the substance of the code, unless trivial, cannot be modified quickly enough by only a few in order to give a marketable "edge" to, as Grady Booch cals it, industrial-strength software.<BR/><BR/>The GPL, by definition, promotes groupthink in an organization that is an alternately-organized corporation based not on commercialism but on idealism. We could dub that groupthink the HURD mentality.<BR/><BR/>In sum, the GPL looks good and really changes nothing because its viral nature suppresses mainstream use. It only works insofar as Medibuntu, FreshRPMS, and other "impure" collections lend parity in usability. How is that any different from the agreements made by the FreeBSD Foundation with Sun or PC-BSD with Adobe?<BR/><BR/>This isn't Slashdot. It's BSDtalk.Gualtherushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08883003117831930441noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20054565.post-53419375299662177782007-12-10T10:37:00.000-08:002007-12-10T10:37:00.000-08:00An issue well and long debated by both sides.. any...An issue well and long debated by both sides.. anyway to a question above, RMS would use a machine with non-free software at the hospital, so long as the machine is not his, just as he would use a non-free ATM to withdraw money. The machines do not belong to him, so he should not have the say on what software should be on them. This was what I was told through email with him.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20054565.post-54502124978791826852007-11-14T20:42:00.000-08:002007-11-14T20:42:00.000-08:00I would first like to say that I appreciate Stallm...I would first like to say that I appreciate Stallman's passion, and valuing ethics and morality above all else. He's almost forming a religion.<BR/><BR/>I don't appreciate the way he talked to the host. He continued to cut him off in the middle of the question, and he even criticized the questions for not being specific enough for his tastes.<BR/><BR/>"... some people have created some licenses that may appear to be closed, free licenses, <BR/>and I wouldn't necessarily want to say that their intent is to confuse the issue, but I think they--" "I don't know. I mean that's so vague, I don't know what licenses you mean."<BR/><BR/>The point is that the licenses exist. You don't need to know exactly which ones. We're talking about general moral issues, here, and not specifics. And anyway, Stallman had an answer, which he provided when the host did a song and dance for him.<BR/><BR/>"Sometimes the choice of different pieces of software that get added into an operating system, there can be some confusion and arguments about how compatible--" "Yes. That's an awfully general thing to say. To make it useful, I think you should a spade a spade ... then I'll know which one it is."<BR/><BR/><sarcasm>I agree, the first half of that question was very pointless. Good call, Stallman.</sarcasm> In any case, Stallman had an answer after he put the host through more hoops.<BR/><BR/>I've seen this behavior in people. They criticize a question for not being precise, even though they know what is meant, and they know the answer. They just want to put somebody else down for not being as meticulous (see 'anal') as they are.<BR/><BR/>OpenBSD is good about keeping the incompatibly licensed software separate. That's why it's in the ports tree and cannot be installed with a plain pkg_add. The user actually has to do a fair amount of work to get it installed. OpenBSD feels that this is a good compromise, and Stallman complains because it's not quite up to this standards. Stallman's standards would require that operating systems have some sort of <B>restrictions</B> that <B>manage</B> what kind of <B>digital</B> software you're allowed to install on your own computer. Maybe you could call it RMD or DMR or something.Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01877921146547203147noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20054565.post-51524683000755099502007-11-03T14:50:00.000-07:002007-11-03T14:50:00.000-07:00How about getting Stallman and Theo on the same sh...How about getting Stallman and Theo on the same show, just stand back and let the fire fly!Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13457040087799494513noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20054565.post-64907315316376339772007-10-29T08:35:00.000-07:002007-10-29T08:35:00.000-07:00@Gualtherus :"It is interesting that Stallmann is ...@Gualtherus :<BR/><BR/>"It is interesting that Stallmann is worried about the private developer being able to produce more feature-rich code than those on the forced commune of the GPL. Is that a backhanded complement for capitalism?"<BR/><BR/>Can you hear ok? He was saying building ON TOP of free code and making it proprietary.<BR/>BTW, morons once in a while come with the communism remarks. He talks about software, not hardware, cars and other idiot examples. Enough with the witch hunt ok? <BR/><BR/>"It is also interesting that freedom itself apparently cannot be guaranteed by free choice, but by a higher directive. Is the GPL a Deus ex machina?"<BR/><BR/>As i mentioned, it's to protect the free code. Like proprietary defends itself, so does the GPL.<BR/><BR/>"If there were no private intellectual property, then there would be no taxes because everything would be communal. Yet economy is an extension of barter, which by definition, is a trade based on mutual possession and mutual lack. Somewhere, have and have-not has to be a part of the picture. Free software exists because the basic incentives of commercial software (paying the bills, eating, and so on) precede it."<BR/><BR/>Again, software? Hello? Are we going for politics, or your even worst vague notions of Economics?<BR/><BR/>All the rest is of no interest for this topic... no more quotesAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20054565.post-48559171067747533432007-10-28T16:09:00.000-07:002007-10-28T16:09:00.000-07:00To Martin above:I could reply to you point by poin...To Martin above:<BR/>I could reply to you point by point, but discuss this for eternity on blog comments is not only tiresome, it's useless. <BR/>A forum would be productive though.<BR/><BR/>I just want to tell you that Stallman's views are what made the Operating System possible and real. He started the whole thing, the philosophy and all. If there's anyone who's been there from start, it's him. Respect him please. Don't worship him, no one asks you to, but do respect him.<BR/><BR/>He knows what he's talking about.<BR/>I think he does exaggerate, but i also think he has to. No one else plays his role, defending Free Software like he does. IMHO crucial!<BR/><BR/>In the end, i think Debian is the most balanced view. You can install whatever non free software you like, but you're clearly shown what is and what is not free software. Default is everything free software, then you're empowered to do whatever you want with YOUR OS.<BR/><BR/>But you should always pursue the idea of having everything free. Not fanatically, but knowing why that is important. There will be always software that most likely is better when proprietary. <BR/>Example: games (a game usually has a short life, and takes a lot of work). Once commercial benefits are exhausted, they could go free though. This example itself could be wrong, but for now i think this is true.<BR/><BR/>:)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20054565.post-5485482107422719752007-10-24T13:14:00.000-07:002007-10-24T13:14:00.000-07:00For those of us that are hearing impaired ... is t...For those of us that are hearing impaired ... is there a transcript of this interview somewhere? Thanks!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20054565.post-27231807697845923422007-10-24T01:57:00.000-07:002007-10-24T01:57:00.000-07:00Anonymous said:"I think you might be confusing fre...Anonymous said:<BR/><BR/>"I think you might be confusing free as in beer with free as in speech. Perhaps the analogy you want is all blueprints for cars should be free. This is as "stupid" as saying that the formulae for making anti-retro viral drugs should be free - free for the developing world to afford drug care that we take for granted. I do consider that an ethical issue, and so by extension I have a lot of sympathy for someone who sees software as an ethical issue. (and no, I do not think I am trying to bankrupt Glaxo. There are many other business models out there, just as the recording industry is having to find out, so will the software and pharma industries. Nothing stands still.)"<BR/><BR/>Unfortunately, you didn't actually mention any business models that would work when free designs are available. The basic point is that Glaxo simply will not spend the hundreds of millions required to develop a new drug if everyone is allowed to simply steal that work from them without compensation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20054565.post-67305703693186094202007-10-23T03:31:00.000-07:002007-10-23T03:31:00.000-07:00>You've completely bypassed my first point. You're...<I>>You've completely bypassed my first point. You're mistaking ports, a system allowing users to install their own software, with base, which is the essential parts of the OS and whatever the developers feel is necessary.</I><BR/><BR/>I know what ports are. The question is what is in the ports? If in the ports from OpenBSD is only Free Software than RMS can recommend OpenBSD because than OpenBSD is 100% Free Software but if you can find in the "official" OpenBSD ports also non-free software than OpenBSD simply distributes non-Free Software (like Debian) and isn't completely free. If or if not there exist ports from third parties with non-free software is not the question, this is OK. The question is what is OpenBSD (or Debian) doing.<BR/><BR/><I>>Stallman and company, however, also take aim at the users. They somehow see it as immoral or wrong for OpenBSD to provide users with a mechanism for installing, say, Opera.</I><BR/><BR/>No, providing this mechanism is OK. GnewSense also provides this mechanism (apt-get, you can add every source you want and of course also non-free sources). But if you want to be a complete free operating system you can't distribute non-free software.<BR/><BR/><I>>Please don't make the mistake that they include that software, even Stallman did not make that distinction. He said they were distributing them, not including them in base.</I><BR/><BR/>As i said Debian manage non-free software on their servers and offers it to their useser. You can search and download this software at debian.org, Debian developers maintain this packages and this infrastructure as part of their "job" as Debian developer. etc.<BR/>So non-free is part of Debian and Debian offers non-free software. So it can't be 100% Free Software while offering non-free software too.<BR/><BR/>Just to make it clear: I don't agree with RMS on every point. Actually i disagree with him in a lot of points. But i have to amdmit that you can simply trust him with regard to Free Software because he stand 100% behind it both with his words and with his deeds.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20054565.post-23585143397617815492007-10-22T22:22:00.000-07:002007-10-22T22:22:00.000-07:00Bleargh...Stallman and company, however, also take...Bleargh...<BR/><BR/>Stallman and company, however, also take aim at the users. They somehow see it as immoral or wrong for OpenBSD to provide users with a mechanism for installing, say, Opera. It's <B>not</B> in ports. It does not affect me; but for those who don't mind running such untrustworthy software, I applaud their efforts, OpenBSD's and Debian's, for distributing the packages for installing them.<BR/><BR/>Delete bolded word. Debate late at night is bad.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20054565.post-4981233304756703832007-10-22T22:21:00.000-07:002007-10-22T22:21:00.000-07:00Until Stallman or somebody else makes sensible, ra...Until Stallman or somebody else makes sensible, rational and logical arguments about how stripping away user's rights to install inane, random unfree software, I'll continue supporting OpenBSD and Debian.<BR/><BR/> ||<BR/> ||<BR/> Change to<BR/> ||<BR/> \||/<BR/> \/<BR/><BR/>Until Stallman or somebody else makes sensible, rational and logical arguments about how stripping away user's rights to install inane, random unfree software improves the code quality of the base system and related utilities, I'll continue supporting OpenBSD and Debian.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20054565.post-31530503238467841812007-10-22T22:19:00.000-07:002007-10-22T22:19:00.000-07:00There is no non-free software in the OpenBSD ports...<I>There is no non-free software in the OpenBSD ports? Thant you should write RMS and tell him that he can safely recommend OpenBSD. I think he would be happy.</I><BR/><BR/>You've completely bypassed my first point. You're mistaking ports, a system allowing users to install their own software, with base, which is the essential parts of the OS and whatever the developers feel is necessary.<BR/><BR/>I understand and agree with Stallman in his arguments. We differ on the license, but as long as we're both talking about developers, I agree with him. Code with an unacceptable license ensures that code relies on one maintainer. Same with NDA'ed driver specifications, the same with horribly written drivers.<BR/><BR/>There are a myriad of logical, technical arguments about why Stallman and Theo are exactly right, in relation to the developers.<BR/><BR/>Stallman and company, however, also take aim at the users. They somehow see it as immoral or wrong for OpenBSD to provide users with a mechanism for installing, say, Opera. It's not in ports. It does not affect me; but for those who don't mind running such untrustworthy software, I applaud their efforts, OpenBSD's and Debian's, for distributing the packages for installing them.<BR/><BR/>Please don't make the mistake that they include that software, even Stallman did not make that distinction. He said they were distributing them, not including them in base.<BR/><BR/>Until Stallman or somebody else makes sensible, rational and logical arguments about how stripping away user's rights to install inane, random unfree software, I'll continue supporting OpenBSD and Debian.<BR/><BR/>(Although it is of course, interesting to debate such things.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20054565.post-5174538300274207872007-10-22T14:53:00.000-07:002007-10-22T14:53:00.000-07:00Sorry, i have to correct me:This:Thant yopu should...Sorry, i have to correct me:<BR/><BR/>This:<BR/><BR/><I>Thant yopu should write RMS and tell him that he can safely recommend OpenBSD. I think he would be happy.</I><BR/><BR/>Should of course be:<BR/><BR/><I>Than you should write RMS and tell him that he can safely recommend OpenBSD. I think he would be happy.</I><BR/><BR/>and this:<BR/><BR/><I>No, it's because unstable is part of Debian even if Debian says that only main is the "original" Debian but that's just word.</I><BR/><BR/>sould of course be:<BR/><BR/><I>No, it's because non-free is part of Debian even if Debian says that only main is the "original" Debian but that's just word.</I>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20054565.post-84028033325950179912007-10-22T14:49:00.000-07:002007-10-22T14:49:00.000-07:00>OpenBSD strictly does NOT come with unfree softwa...<I>>OpenBSD strictly does NOT come with unfree software.</I><BR/><BR/>There is no non-free software in the OpenBSD ports? Thant yopu should write RMS and tell him that he can safely recommend OpenBSD. I think he would be happy.<BR/><BR/><I>>It really is because you can install unfree software.</I><BR/><BR/>No, it's because unstable is part of Debian even if Debian says that only main is the "original" Debian but that's just word. Reallity shows that there are non-free repositories on Debian servers, they get maintened by Debian-Developers as part of their job as Debian-Developers you can download/search the software from debian.org, etc.<BR/>Debian cann tell a lot but if you look at their server and their webpage reality shows soemthing different, non-free software is part of Debian (even if they try to distinguish between the debian project and the debian OS, that doesn't count because that just words the deeds are the important things and the deeds telling something different)<BR/><BR/>And exactly that is was RMS said:<BR/><BR/><I>RMS: Non-free programs are not officially considered "part of Debian", but Debian does distribute them. The Debian web site describes non-free programs, and their ftp server distributes them. That's why we don't have links to their site on www.gnu.org.</I><BR/><BR/>You can also add to the gnewsense sources the Ubuntu restricted repositories and install non-free software. But Gnewsense doesnt distribute or provide non-free software. That's the important point.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20054565.post-24374420494305621452007-10-22T07:18:00.001-07:002007-10-22T07:18:00.001-07:00Could anyone PLEASE post a transcript?Could anyone PLEASE post a transcript?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20054565.post-44943832069482325182007-10-22T07:18:00.000-07:002007-10-22T07:18:00.000-07:00It is not because you can install non-free softwar...<I>It is not because you can install non-free software, you can also install non free software on the OS which RMS recommends.<BR/><BR/>It is because OpenBSD come with non-free Software so it is simply not an entirely free OS it's the same like Debian. You can say what you want at the end they come with non-free software and offers non-free software to their users so it's not an complete free OS.</I><BR/><BR/>This is, however, untrue. OpenBSD strictly does NOT come with unfree software. Theo and company are, rightfully, very strict on this issue. Unless you intend to claim that the BSD license is not free (GPL/BSD flamewars aside), there is NO unfree software in OpenBSD. Please provide a link to OpenBSD source code in base that is "unfree"<BR/><BR/>It really is because you can install unfree software. He openly states in this interview (http://www.ofb.biz/article.pl?sid=260) that he does not recommend Debian because you can install unfree software.<BR/><BR/><I>TRB: What about Debian GNU/Linux, which by default does not install any non-free software?<BR/><BR/>RMS: Non-free programs are not officially considered "part of Debian", but Debian does distribute them. The Debian web site describes non-free programs, and their ftp server distributes them. That's why we don't have links to their site on www.gnu.org.</I><BR/><BR/>Never mind how you have to manually enable the nonfree repositories, Debian is evil for daring to allow people to do what they like.<BR/><BR/>And this is why I've lost all respect for the man. I hadn't realized that he honestly dislikes people who offer users a choice. Installing Opera, for example, is not the same as distributing binary blobs.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20054565.post-37917876766861024182007-10-22T04:49:00.000-07:002007-10-22T04:49:00.000-07:00Some comments:>But no, he includes OpenBSD. Why? B...Some comments:<BR/><BR/><I>>But no, he includes OpenBSD. Why? Because you ~can~ install non-free code. And by doing so, he demonstrates himself to be a fundamentalist.</I><BR/><BR/>It is not because you can install non-free software, you can also install non free software on the OS which RMS recommends.<BR/><BR/>It is because OpenBSD come with non-free Software so it is simply not an entirely free OS it's the same like Debian. You can say what you want at the end they come with non-free software and offers non-free software to their users so it's not an complete free OS.<BR/><BR/><I>>I have to say that it really makes my skin crawl when he insists on imposing<BR/>"his" ethics on me and everyone else in the industry. There is an absolutism to<BR/>his position which ultimately underminds the value of his work.</I><BR/><BR/>no this doesn't undermines his work this makes him serious.<BR/><BR/>Imaging an Environmentalist who says "environmental protection is nice but this kind of pollution or that kind of pollution is OK". Would you take him serious? Or think about someone who fights for human rights and says: "human rights are important but a little slavery or a little bit censorship of press is OK". Would you take him serious?<BR/><BR/>I wouldn't take such guys serious. But i take RMS really serious because he has his values and stands up for it both by his talks and by his deeds.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20054565.post-30963575489543328802007-10-20T03:20:00.000-07:002007-10-20T03:20:00.000-07:00First of all thanks for this great interview.There...First of all thanks for this great interview.<BR/><BR/>There was one question left unanswered: The CDDL is considered to be a free software license by the FSF. But it is not compatible with the GPL.<BR/><BR/>see<BR/><A HREF="http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#CDDL" REL="nofollow">http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#CDDL</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20054565.post-88767293068560017222007-10-19T10:30:00.000-07:002007-10-19T10:30:00.000-07:00Nobody cares what stallman and his religious follo...Nobody cares what stallman and his religious following think.<BR/><BR/>Interview "real" hard working developers.<BR/><BR/>Why not ask Theo? He commits daily.. and I'd like to here what he has to think.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20054565.post-70945000373824148622007-10-19T05:03:00.000-07:002007-10-19T05:03:00.000-07:00>>I was always wondering what would RMS say in hos...>>I was always wondering what would RMS say in hospital when someone try to scan his body using complex medical equipment with non-free software inside. I see no difference (well, almost) between RMS and Watchtower's Witnesses, who refuses blood's transfusing. <BR/><BR/>I don't think you are really wondering. You already have an answer ready, and it doesn't sound like whatever someone, least of all rms himself, will say will change that.<BR/><BR/>>>They're fanatics.<BR/>Yes, given enough strawmen, everyone can be a fanatic.<BR/><BR/>>>And yes, mr. Stallman, I listen this podcast using my mp3-player, which has no knowledge about .ogg format. It is YOU, you restrict my freedom to listen, and I fight against you, by converting ogg to mp3.<BR/><BR/>The man grants his time for an interview, and asks to not distribute it in a way that is what he believes bad for society (software patents). I really don't understand your belligerent attitude.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20054565.post-47825713149626705912007-10-19T02:53:00.000-07:002007-10-19T02:53:00.000-07:00I was always wondering what would RMS say in hospi...I was always wondering what would RMS say in hospital when someone try to scan his body using complex medical equipment with non-free software inside. I see no difference (well, almost) between RMS and Watchtower's Witnesses, who refuses blood's transfusing. They're fanatics.<BR/><BR/>And yes, mr. Stallman, I listen this podcast using my mp3-player, which has no knowledge about .ogg format. It is YOU, you restrict my freedom to listen, and I fight against you, by converting ogg to mp3.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20054565.post-33064026363590221902007-10-18T23:51:00.000-07:002007-10-18T23:51:00.000-07:00I'm sure he didn't insist on ogg as the "one forma...I'm sure he didn't insist on ogg as the "one format" -- he just insisted on free formats. PCM or others would have been ok too, I'm sure. Ogg just happens to be the best free format available.<BR/><BR/>Why don't you want to use ogg? There are decoders available for every OS...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com