People seem to forget he is an idealist. If he thinks free software is the most important social issue of our time, don't be surprised his other beliefs flow from it. I think his role as an uncompromising figure is important to maintain the shape of the overton window. I wouldn't want him to be anything else.
You don't have to agree with him (he is ridiculously idealistic), but his position provides us a lenses to analyze our own. To understand what we want software to be, our ability to affect that, the constraints practicality places on that, and how we reconcile the two.
There is always going to be a line where we say "fuck it, I need money", so poke around and discover yourself rather than taking the quick route and just writing off everything you're not already involved with as someone else's problem.
Hopefully, on the other end of that process, we have discovered enough about our stance on software that we're above a banal characterization of free software like: Good at making software that helps people and brings joy to others? Don’t do it.
He's not an idealist, he is an ideologue. He will not even consider a compromise or gradual moves to his position. His position is unquestionably right and just and everyone who disagrees or does otherwise is wrong and undeniably evil.
He is no different than a religious zealot. He just worships a different god.
The only lens he provides is one for us to say 'hell, at least I'm not that crazy.'
What a narrow-minded position. RMS is mostly harmless, has brought some good things into this world, and provides a reliable reservoir for a particular set of ideals. Nobody has to agree with him for him to be useful. He's operating within the confines of the law. He is not trampling on anyone's rights. He is worth 100 people who just compromise everything away for short term gain. He's like Ron Paul; kind of a nutter, but a necessary antidote for these times.
Can we just get rid of him? Set him on a proverbial iceberg and let him chart his own course?
As a spokesperson he has an obligation to present himself in a manner that's representative of the movement itself, not of himself.
I don't care how busy you are, you can make time to learn how to interact with people better. You can't know how to write a compiler and not be able to figure out simple human interaction. It's obviously a case of priorities and not caring.
I am not going to comment the article in itself, I think many people have pointed out in other comment that the guy completely missed the point. But I want to answer this comment:
There's a reason why we sometimes shouldn't compromise. A LOT of powers in this world are just waiting for the opportunity to use the good ol' "foot in the door" strategy, especially with free/ open source software. Richard Stall, hate it or love it, with the GPL license has found a way to prevent it. So, in that case there is no compromise, and he's right.
There's also a reason with Free/Open source software are now a subject of philosophical research, and your lack of understanding of the forces at play is a good example why some people, the author of this post in question, should stop to look at open source softwares through the "is it conveniant for me?" lens.
God, the eternal september syndrom is so strong with Open Source software!...
That software is getting more free over time has almost nothing to do with imposing licenses like GPL and everything to do with attitude.
People want to share. People love to share. It used to be in the days before version control systems, before reliable internetworking, that sharing was hard, tedious, often impractical. The difference between open source and closed source was often a matter of proximity.
Now with tools like Github that foster community and encourage people to build things that are free and/or open there has been an explosion of open-source software.
People like RMS refuse to acknowledge or even entertain the idea that there needs to be a healthy balance between open and closed. You can be too open just as you can be too closed.
His extremist, binary position is not based in reality.
Uh, telling you that the way you make a living is unethical is not the same as wishing harm upon your children. You may not agree with his ethical system (lord knows I don't, it's bonkers) but everyone's economic activities are subject to ethical judgments, even if they're feeding children with their profits. Lots of people raise children in less financially comfortable circumstances than computer programmers, and most of them turn out fine.
Re: RMS's bonkers ethical system: I really don't think he ever moved past the mindset he had in academia, where he was essentially a researcher of how computers do and could work. To him, code should be shared freely just like research in biology and physics is. This has nothing to do with the real world as it exists today, but I do honestly belief that's the germ of his worldview.
FYI, code is not shared freely in biology and physics, it's a big problem.
academia is not a hegemony. there are a few people in academia that share beliefs with stallman, there are many others that have no problem with making money off of their work.
I guess what I meant is not the code people write to conduct the research, but the actual results of that research. As in, you can't copyright a fact. You can't copyright a beaker or a flask. I know there's a lot of debate within the scientific community about commercialization, but I think there was a lot less of this in the '70s when Stallman was forming his ideas.
If you think something is unethical, as rms does with proprietary software, why would that change if it puts people out of work? He still thinks it's unethical.
He ties it up with a false dichotomy: either I develop proprietary software or my children starve. If children really did starve due to there being no proprietary software jobs, then the discussion is different, but it's not the case.
Surely there are job losses in the tobacco industry, but I don't think we should stop discouraging it as a society.
This is such an ignorant and lazy article, why has it got so many votes here? Sigh.
This is getting frustrating. While I don't agree with Stallman that _all_ software needs to be free, I think the LAS interview with RMS was pathetic.
Bryan Lunduke quickly jumped to the, "think of the children!" argument. It was very unclassy of him. It's fine, I see people fallback to that kind of argument a lot, especially when they think they're losing their footing in a debate, but I expected better from him.
Bryan took a lot of emotion-fueled cheapshots at Stallman. In contrast, at least Stallman was very clear and straightforward about what he believed, even if you think some of the things he said were insane. I'm surprised he had such little exposure to RMS before this, and was actually surprised by his beliefs.
"If you disagree with me, then you obviously hate children." This is really pathetic. Go ahead, try to make it _impossible_ for people to disagree with you. Blackmail the audience, play on their emotions, and guilt them into agreeing with you. I was really disgusted by these tactics.
tl;dr - Man went in trying to interview Stallman with a bunch of preconceptions ("here's what I expected to happen:"), ignored what Stallman was trying to say, and is now writing an article about how not understanding someone confirmed the prejudices and stereotypes he had about them.
Lunduke is obnoxious, Stallman is a jerk, and it doesn't surprise me that most programmers continue to think they are entitled to earn a living from programming while being the first to shout about the "buggy whip makers" cliche whenever a discussion about jobs and automation comes up.
I found it hilarious the way Stallman simply brought down any argument presented to him, I'm sure he mentioned proprietary software not respecting our freedom atleast 20 times, no matter what the argument was. It is safe to say that this man is a true idealist. I wonder what Hacker News' opinion is on this.
Agreed, interviewer did no research beforehand. Stallman has always maintained free software is the most important thing, certainly more important than feeding your chickens or your children. No news there.
And Stallman also thinks GNU is more important than Linux. And so on.
You can turn this argument on any way of making money. Ooh, you think truth in advertising is more important than feeding my children!? Or from Facebook's perspective--you think privacy is more important than feeding my children!?
Really, it's a trite argument--just because something makes you money does not mean it's justified. If that was true, how could we justify punishing people like Madoff? This is actually a good parallel--nobody had to buy into Madoff's scheme, but if they did it hurt them. Nobody has to buy into proprietary software, but if they do they lose some of their rights.
And, of course, this argument has another fatal weakness--just because you can't hide the source from your users does not mean you can't make money. If anything, the main reason free software is relatively weak in the market (although not that weak) is because of competition from proprietary software. If all software was free, you could expect making money that way to be easier.
So really it's a flawed argument that would have been invalid even without the flaw.
For all the good work that rms has done for the FSF movement, and for all his brilliance compared to the rest of us average Joes, he stands out as an example of what happens when you have a binary, black and white view of the world. It's no compromises, at any cost. What a pity.
Not compromising doesn't mean "black and white". rms asserts that proprietary knowledge/software is bad for society, and he (naturally) gets a lot of resistance from people who have strong ethical convictions in general, but also skin in the game profiting from the way it is: i.e. us founders and developers and consultants. It's easy for us to see that the legal system is fucked up, but hard to be honest about our own field when our interests start conflicting. We talk ad nauseam about patents and engineering techniques, but have comparatively little discussion about the ethics of proprietary software. It's easy to just kinda take it for granted. And when rms does come up, these ad hominems are usually about as far as it goes. There's a line from Mad Men, "nobody knows what's wrong with themselves, and everyone else can see it right away."
rms isn't a businessman or a politician, he's a "prophet". However secular his beliefs, he sacrifices for his convictions (not that he has a "side", this isn't a sport!). He's in the tradition of Jesus, Luther, Copernicus. Their ideas threatened the orthodoxies of their time; what kept the money-changers in the temple, the Church profiting from indulgences and remaining the scientific authority. It wasn't a pity that Jesus waged peace on war, that Luther called bullshit on indulgences, or that Copernicus proved Earth went around Sun. If they'd've chosen otherwise, in retrospect, what good would it have done?
If Jesus led a rebellion against Rome, or Copernicus didn't publish, or, I don't know, Luther embraced the printing press + surplus cloth to trail-blaze the romance novel...
Their common enemy was ignorance, and history's been shaped by those who didn't compromise on what they knew mattered. That doesn't mean we all have to! I'm no prophet. I write proprietary software. But when I run across one of these articles, I remember that most software works best as a public good, that I should release more code on GitHub, that I should keep moving on my back-burner OSS projects, etc. His views aren't convenient to many hackers, but I find his determination admirable.
"no compromises, at any cost" is black and white. The operative part is "at any cost". rms has been brilliant at what he has achieved, with the problem being that he believes he's right and brilliant at anything he does. That's a huge leap in logic right there - you just have to visit his blog to see what I mean.
While there is wisdom in advising one to be single minded in one's pursuits, there is also wisdom in being open to the possibility of being wrong in that single mindedness. I believe rms is right to pursue the principles behind the FSF - it has brought much good. However, I think he is wrong to believe that FSF applies to everything.
Very biased interviewer and horrible introduction to a an interview about a rather interesting topic. I also do not agree with Mr. Stallman about this specific point, but this is just bad journalism.
If you start with such a blatant false dychotomy ("It is either proprietary software or the children will die!!!") expect to be treated with hostility. Next time try asking the Pope why he thinks that banning condoms is more important than preventing all the misery caused by the spread of HIV.
This is typical Stallman behavior. I think the right person to ask such questions would be Eric Raymond or maybe even Linus Torvalds. They have a more practical approach to free software. Also, looking at how companies provide free software, and economize on the service packages is a good way. Github provides "free" service, but they have different plans for different requirements, which helps them make money, and develop Git.
If Richard really cared about FSF he would stop making such a spectacle of himself as it's easy to discredit a movement with a gibbering lunatic as its frontman.
Then again, maybe he's setting an example of how programmers should make money in a post-FSF world (writing books and doing interviews)
He, might be crazy, but definitely not a gibbering lunatic. His position is perfectly logical, no matter how much it pisses you off/frightens you. It is the interviewer who was spouting an emotionally loaded false dichotomy, which is an effective rhetorical tactic for defending the way he's making his living and so might be a sane response, but is also nonsense.
Free Software is not about slavish compliance with licensing terms or inventing shiny new technology for technology's sake (that movement is called Open Source). Free Software is about having the freedom to control your computing environment.
I believe this is really, really important because in a world increasingly shaped and even dominated by technology, people have to be able to look under the hood and fix the code that runs their society. Otherwise they become slaves to whoever made the rules by writing the code.
Proprietary software violates this requirement, but at least you can reverse engineer it, hack it. With cloud services, even that option is removed. The user has lost all control. This is pretty obviously bad for a democratic society, but hey, it's great for tech wizards aspiring to be the next Mark Zuckeberg, so who cares about that? :-P
The same argument can be made for any sufficiently complicated device or technology, not just code. I suppose I could deconstruct my smart phone and reverse engineer all of its drawings, designs and schematics. Practically speaking though I am bound to its original designer's implementation.
Furthermore, in a democratic society you're more than free to vote with your money -- I don't understand what having full access to someone else's intellectual property/the fruits of their labor has to do with democracy.
You are right, the same argument can be made, and often it should be made.
As an example, a lot of people are pissed off that they can no longer fix their cars themselves because of black-box designs and software restrictions. The ultimate result of that sort of thing is a monopoly on repairs and upgrades, where only approved mechanics who promise to only make approved changes can do useful work. This may be good for the bottom line of the car manufacturer, who ultimately wants you to buy another car, but it is not good for society.
Software is also a special case, in that it is rapidly becoming our society's primary means of communication and decision making. Some things, games and toys, don't matter really and are not a matter of great concern. But other things, operating systems and communication platforms, social networks, voting systems... it can be argued that allowing these to be closed and proprietary is something we should never accept.
Also, keep in mind that Intellectual Property is not a natural right - it is an artificial construct, a monopoly granted by government to encourage innovation and for the benefit of society. If it turns out that it does the opposite, hinders innovation (patent wars, anyone?) and disempowers society (censorship on Facebook?), then it has stopped serving its purpose.
"Furthermore, in a democratic society you're more than free to vote with your money -- I don't understand what having full access to someone else's intellectual property/the fruits of their labor has to do with democracy."
You have conflated so much economics and governmental policy here I don't even know where to start. We (at least Americans) live in neither a free market nor democracy, for starters.
"people have to be able to look under the hood and fix the code that runs their society. Otherwise they become slaves to whoever made the rules by writing the code."
This is where we disagree. If you don't like the license that I use, don't use the software that I created.
Are we "slaves" because we don't know the specifics of something inside our TV or car? no. and we won't be slaves if we don't get all of the source code to the software that we use.
You act as if it's a right and when enough people start feeling this way, the next step is usually to get the government involved to force software vendors to open up their source (Stallman has openly stated that he would like this). Viewing my source code isn't a right and should never be a right.
The free software and open source movements have both devalued developers. Why would I hire a software engineer that has years of schooling and costs $80K, when I can just hire a software mechanic for half price and make simple changes to the free stuff that the engineer created.
The same thing that is happening to other industries will happen to developers in 5-10 years. We are just at the beginning of the transition.
I've worked at many places that could have hired 5 developers, but only hired me because we were using open source and the majority of the what was needed was already finished. Another factor is that the younger generations, who have been using open source throughout their lives, are growing up and starting businesses.
I'm not saying this is a bad or a good thing, just my prediction.
This is where we disagree. If you don't like the license that I use, don't use the software that I created.
That's doesn't necessarily conflict with HerraBRE's position. Personally, I don't think people should be forced to distribute their code, but I sure as hell will avoid such software if there's an open alternative. Ideally, I hope we as a society can eliminate the demand for proprietary software, thus eliminating it without ever violating anyone's rights.
The free software and open source movements have both devalued developers. Why would I hire a software engineer that has years of schooling and costs $80K, when I can just hire a software mechanic for half price and make simple changes to the free stuff that the engineer created.
More efficient competition is always scary. But for society as a whole, that's a very huge gain of resources that'll be applied somewhere else, possibly paying engineers to actually develop something new and worthwhile instead of reinventing the wheel.
In any case, we're on HN! Where's your contempt for the salarymen? ;)
If I don't like the license you use, I don't. Except when I have no choice, which has unfortunately often been the case due to natural monopolies or social pressure. A decade ago, that problem was Microsoft. Today it is becoming SaaS in the cloud (witness Facebook's natural monopoly on all things social).
Regarding devaluing developers by making the entire industry more efficient... you can't possibly believe that's bad for society. You sound like you feel entitled to a big paycheck and government granted monopoly protection for your work (that is what Copyright and patents and the like are, artificial government granted monopolies).
I disagree with that sense of entitlement. And as a result, I do think your so called rights (privileges would be a better word) should be restricted a bit. :-) But I honestly don't think it will harm you. Without a complete paradigm shift in how code is created, programming will remain a highly sought after and highly valued skill for a very long time. There are still so many unsolved problems out there, and people will pay to have them solved, no matter what the license and no matter what the legal environment.
I think this is hilarious. Stallman would rather have you live in poverty and get donations or basically become a tech support technician than sell software for money.
My problem with Stallman is that he doesn't compromise. For the same reason many people on HN hate religious right zealots, I dislike Stallman.
The only people in my mind that don't compromise are dictators and I'm glad he has no power over anything that I do.
This guy's article blatantly admits he went in expecting and preparing to be on the defensive. That's never a good way to go about understanding another human being. Surprise, surprise he says he doesn't understand the audacity of RMS! =O
So this is kind of humorous that this guy is taking this personally and actually seems to think Stallman wants his kids to die, but Stallman really would do better with more compassion and empathy so people don't just tune him out.
This is like when a person claims they don't believe in evolution for religious reasons and many people just dismiss or insult them. Nobody takes the time to address their fears and try to explain things to them in a non-threatening way.
Working programmers should be incredibly thankful to Mr. Stallman for pied-piping thousands of people out of workforce and for keeping the cost of hiring a good software engineer high.
I saw RMS speak in person at WordCamp one year. Although he has some great, important ideas and he's made great contributions, I think he might be mentally unstable. Seriously - seeing him in person, he came across as quite crazy.
Let's take a look at what really went down here. First, Lunduke decides to ask Richard Stallman about moving from working on proprietary software to Free software while continuing to make. Second, Stallman answers and says that he thinks having Free software is more important than making money, and that if somebody really cared about Free software that they would be willing to take a job in a factory or some other profession to meet their needs in life. Third, Lunduke decides that Stallman hates children and is a lunatic.
Quoting from the linked piece: "Good at making software that helps people and brings joy to others? Don’t do it. Go work 'in a factory' even if you are going to do a terrible job at 'working in a factory' and couldn’t support your family that way."
Stallman never said anything about not working on software that helps and brings joy. Merely that it ought to be Free software. There are plenty of companies out there selling Free software and support. Just because you produce Free software doesn't mean you can't make money doing it.
This is a classic case of an interviewer just not getting it.
Stallman probably thinks of freedom as the most important right, so he'd probably tend to "the less I depend on society, the better" line of thought
and that's what happens, if you live completely immersed in society, you need money, and always more money then, to live, and that's the rules of the game, if you adopted simpler and more idealistic living, you wouldn't depend on money so much... and you'd turn out to be less of a slave of money
so how much of this "feed my children" is about capitalist race and how much of it is "feed my children"?
He really doesn't care that you think you need to make 200k/year to feed your children, the fix is inside the problem
Oh no, let's not go this way again. It a conversation that has been had on-and-on, and it is always the same thing. To me this is a form of soap opera. We know that this is a guy who chews skin that he just peeled off of his feet in front of an audience. So, obviously this is somebody who has to be taken for what he is, discussing his pros and cons is a waste of time.
It's not an ad hominem at all. It's not used as an argument against his statements about software. It was used as an example of his personality. How is a known fact about his personality not a valid example of his personality? The statement being made was that the personality of rms is well known, so to act all shocked and surprised when he exhibits that personality is ludicrous.
You could even say that it was the opposite of an ad hominem: an appeal to look beyond the known idiosyncrasies of Stallman and focus on, well, his statements about software.
The world of software and its ecosystem/environment, like the rest of the world, is immensely complex and not susceptible to simple analysis that can be summarised in an essay. Therefore when we decide how much attention to pay to someones thoughts about the world of software it is useful to know if his opinions on other matters stack up, thereby casting light on how effective is his ability to analyze complex scenarios.
You don't have to agree with him (he is ridiculously idealistic), but his position provides us a lenses to analyze our own. To understand what we want software to be, our ability to affect that, the constraints practicality places on that, and how we reconcile the two.
There is always going to be a line where we say "fuck it, I need money", so poke around and discover yourself rather than taking the quick route and just writing off everything you're not already involved with as someone else's problem.
Hopefully, on the other end of that process, we have discovered enough about our stance on software that we're above a banal characterization of free software like: Good at making software that helps people and brings joy to others? Don’t do it.