[Gllug] Talk by Richard Stallman in London, 12 Feb

[Mike Brodbelt]

On Sat, 2002-01-26 at 16:24, Richard Cottrill wrote:
> Well if you pay for software as a service (particularly if it's remote) then
> the software may be open, or closed, but in no case is it free.

RMS has never given a damn whether software is free (as in beer) - in
fact he sells GNU software from the FSF, and has done for many years.

> Not only
> that, but you could lose the benefits of freedom even if the software were
> free/libre because the version that the service provider may deliberately
> prevent you moving to different service providers.

If the software used by the service provider was GPL'ed, then you would
have access to the source, and would have no difficulty moving. This
would in no way prevent a decent service provider from running an
economically sound business.

> Granted, anyone silly
> enough to be stuck in such a situation probably deserves the reaming that
> they will no doubt get (how does this hold for Nutscrape email users?),

Netscape stores it's email in a widely known and easily accessible
format. Anyway, anyone forward looking today will be using IMAP, where
server storage format is a non issue, as you can migrate via the
protocol.

> The last time I came across an RMS
> speech/lecture/diatribe-about-whatever-crossed-his-slighty-confused-mind he
> was talking about free software in general, and freeing users was where he
> eventually settled. Actually he got himself sufficiently worked up to
> endorse piracy of software in no uncertain terms.

RMS has stated repeatedly and clearly his opinions that use of closed
source is morally wrong. You may choose to agree or disagree with this,
but he has always considered the sharing of software to be a duty of all
users. To permit this, RMS refuses to use software that is not free (as
in speech). Given that the man refuses to endorse use on non-free
software, sharing anything he is prepared to use is, by definition, not
piracy.

> Considering the audience I
> suspect he was personally responsible for setting back the cause of free
> software in the Australian government to some considerable degree. Canberra
> is utterly a Microsoft town - departmental managers simply refuse to believe
> that free software can be useful - 'you get what you pay for'.

So you believe he should water down his priciples to gain greater
acceptance of free software? He's not out to get Canberra (or anywhere
else) to save money by using Linux, he's out to get people to stop using
non-free software. It's not a half-way proposition. It seems you and he
disagree on what "the cause of free software" is.

> Not that I'm a little home-sick on this rather wet and cold Australia day...
> For want of a better plan I think I'll head to one of the Walkabout pubs for
> a few drinks.

If you disagree with RMS's views, fine. However, to insult a man who has
invested most of his life in providing the tools and philosophy that
many of the Linux community use all the time, is hardly an appropriate
attitude. Whether you agree with him or not, he deserves more respect
than many in the Linux community today seem to provide. 

Mike.


-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at linux.co.uk
http://list.ftech.net/mailman/listinfo/gllug