--- layout: post status: publish published: true title: Richard Stallman at the University of Sussex wordpress_id: 829 wordpress_url: https://www.martineve.com/?p=829 date: !binary |- MjAxMS0wMy0wOSAxNTowNjowNyArMDEwMA== date_gmt: !binary |- MjAxMS0wMy0wOSAxNTowNjowNyArMDEwMA== categories: - Technology - Linux tags: - GNU/Linux - Richard Stallman - Free Software comments: - id: 6214 author: Martin Paul Eve author_email: martin@martineve.com author_url: '' date: !binary |- MjAxMS0wMy0wOSAxNjoyNjo0MCArMDEwMA== date_gmt: !binary |- MjAxMS0wMy0wOSAxNjoyNjo0MCArMDEwMA== content: Also worth pointing out that, in a hypothetical future where we can resurrect the dead and murder isn't a crime, Stallman said we'd all need uninsured murderer premiums... except in civilized countries where it would be covered by the NHS! - id: 6216 author: Martin Paul Eve author_email: martin@martineve.com author_url: '' date: !binary |- MjAxMS0wMy0wOSAyMDowNDowMyArMDEwMA== date_gmt: !binary |- MjAxMS0wMy0wOSAyMDowNDowMyArMDEwMA== content: ! 'I think this is total rubbish. Stallman argues that the operating systems in which the TCP stack is incorporated should have all been open in the first place; and I agree. Your licensing choice allows companies to disempower end users. The GPL forces them (and you) to respect them, instead. You have entered, upon your birth, into a social contact which legislatively prohibits you from performing certain actions, predicated on the assumption that you are free to act as you wish, until it impacts upon someone else. The GPL is nothing else than the translation of this ethico-juridicial provision into the realm of software. Furthermore, RMS'' erroneous assertion as regards OpenBSD has no bearing whatsoever on this argument; it is an attempt by you to point out an unrelated mistake and, through ad hominem means, discredit the GPL. If you''ve got an axe to grind, go feed the trolls on Slashdot, but don''t bother with it here. Finally, in the end none of us has choice over the environment into which we are born. I could not have chosen to have been born into a dictatorship anymore than I was born into a fairly liberal democracy. This element, in which I had "no choice", has shaped the entire course of my life and I had no say in it whatsoever. It would, given the alternative, however, be somewhat discourteous -- indeed, masochistic -- to complain. In this case, I''d rather have "no choice" if that "no choice" is my freedom rather than others'' rights to remove that freedom and that goes for software and government..' - id: 6221 author: Dominic Humphries author_email: linux@oneandoneis2.org author_url: http://geekblog.oneandoneis2.org/ date: !binary |- MjAxMS0wMy0xMCAxMjoyODo0OSArMDEwMA== date_gmt: !binary |- MjAxMS0wMy0xMCAxMjoyODo0OSArMDEwMA== content: ! "\"Do people really think this is ok?\"\r\n\r\nYes.\r\n\r\nIt's really very simple: If you use code that somebody else wrote, then you've benefited from that code being released freely.\r\n\r\nThe cost that comes with that benefit is you have to release *your* code under the GPL too. Only you can decide if the cost is worth the benefit - but cost/benefit is what all economics is based on.\r\n\r\nRealistically, every case will boil down to one of two scenarios: Either using the GPL code will make a significant difference to you, or it won't. \r\n\r\nIf it won't, then don't bother using it, and then you don't have to GPL your code.\r\n\r\nBut if using that GPL code will give you a significant benefit, then how can you complain that you haven't been given that benefit without any cost?\r\n\r\nThe only reason that you were able to use the GPL code is that it was released under the GPL - why should you benefit from that code being free, but be allowed to stop anyone else getting the same benefit from your code - code which has significant quantities of GPL code in it?" - id: 6222 author: Sevan author_email: venture37@gmail.com author_url: http://www.geeklan.co.uk date: !binary |- MjAxMS0wMy0xMCAxMjo0MDoyOSArMDEwMA== date_gmt: !binary |- MjAxMS0wMy0xMCAxMjo0MDoyOSArMDEwMA== content: ! "Let's not forget him basing his argument against the BSD license on very very outdated information, there is no longer two variants of the BSD license & NetBSD who were the last people to use the variant of the BSD license with the advertising clause stopped doing so a while back.\r\nIf you can be bothered, read \"Real men don't attack straw men\" which made the OpenBSD project dedicate release 4.3 to him & his hypocrisy.\r\nhttp://kerneltrap.org/mailarchive/openbsd-misc/2007/12/10/486713\r\n\r\nhttp://openbsd.org/lyrics.html#43\r\n\r\nI was hoping to get my 4.3 cd set booklet signed by him but he refused." - id: 6223 author: Steve Dobson author_email: steve@dobbo.org author_url: '' date: !binary |- MjAxMS0wMy0xMCAxMjo0NToxMyArMDEwMA== date_gmt: !binary |- MjAxMS0wMy0xMCAxMjo0NToxMyArMDEwMA== content: ! "I was there, so many thanks for putting a link to the OGG of the talk on-line, I'm downloading it now, and I know of at least one other that will do the same.\r\n\r\nI was once at a talk where Linus T as asked about how he thought that Linux should be pounced. At that time (about ten years ago) he said that either was acceptable, but he may have changed is mind since that time, of that I have no knowledge." - id: 6224 author: Steve Dobson author_email: steve@dobbo.org author_url: '' date: !binary |- MjAxMS0wMy0xMCAxMjo1MzowMSArMDEwMA== date_gmt: !binary |- MjAxMS0wMy0xMCAxMjo1MzowMSArMDEwMA== content: But RMS isn't giving his code away. If he was he would release it to the public domain. That is one of the choices available to any creator. RMS is sharing his code, and in sharing there are terms. It is a very important distinction. - id: 6225 author: Steve Dobson author_email: steve@dobbo.org author_url: '' date: !binary |- MjAxMS0wMy0xMCAxMzoxMzo1MyArMDEwMA== date_gmt: !binary |- MjAxMS0wMy0xMCAxMzoxMzo1MyArMDEwMA== content: ! "But your are not using the same definition of \"free\". RMS made the point that he is talking about FREEdom, you are talking more about no cost, no restrictions.\r\n\r\nIf one lives in a free society one has laws one must obey. \ You are not \"free\" to do anything you want. You can't go around killing people for example. If you remove all laws one gets anarchy. There the only person that is \"free\" is the biggest bully, the person with the biggest gun, the one that gets to impost her will on everyone else.\r\n\r\nWe had that kind of government here in England long ago. The biggest bullies became the kings. At one time when a king died then there would be a fight over who was next to be king. There was no line of succession. The one powerful enough bully was able to force that concept on those that followed.\r\n\r\nWith each advance of government reform we have widened the coverage of law. When the Magna Carta was signed that was the first time when everyone was brought under the rule of law, even the king. \ The American Declaration of Independence is respected as such an important document *because* it states that all men are equal under the law.\r\n\r\nThe GPU make a similar claim. It grants the same rights to all down stream users, only the author has more power. The BSD licenses make so such claim. Two degrees on from the author one can be back in the world of propriety, closed source systems. Where is the freedom to those uses in that system?" - id: 6228 author: Rus author_email: secret@emails.com author_url: '' date: !binary |- MjAxMS0wMy0xMCAxMzo0NjowMCArMDEwMA== date_gmt: !binary |- MjAxMS0wMy0xMCAxMzo0NjowMCArMDEwMA== content: ! "I remember back in the day when the redhat sound config tool would play 'my name is Linus Torvalds and I pronounce Linux, Linux'.\r\n\r\nDoes it still have that!?" - id: 6230 author: Dominic Humphries author_email: linux@oneandoneis2.org author_url: http://geekblog.oneandoneis2.org/ date: !binary |- MjAxMS0wMy0xMCAxNDowNTowNyArMDEwMA== date_gmt: !binary |- MjAxMS0wMy0xMCAxNDowNTowNyArMDEwMA== content: ! "\"I not sure how releasing code under a different, more liberal license will stop anyone from benefiting from from it. \"\r\n\r\nReally? Let me spell it out for you, then:\r\n\r\nProgrammer A writes some code. He releases it into the public domain: Anyone can do anything they like with the code, no restrictions.\r\n\r\nProgrammer B takes this code, adds some of his own code, then releases it as proprietary software.\r\n\r\nProgrammer C buys B's software, likes it, and wants to develop it further. But he can't: B has taken this ability away from him. He can get hold of A's code, then reproduce what B did, and THEN start doing his own development.\r\n\r\nAs far as A, the original writer, is concerned, releasing under the GPL would have made no difference to him.\r\n\r\nAs far as B is concerned, it would have made some difference: B could still have written the exact same code, he just couldn't have released it as proprietary software. \r\n\r\nYou're constantly missing the point, despite the fact that everyone you question has been hammering it home repeatedly: The GPL isn't just about YOUR freedom. You're constantly putting yourself in B's shoes and complaining that you aren't free to release your GPL derivative under a different license. But the GPL isn't written to give B that power: It's written to ensure that C can always get the source code with the same rights and freedoms as B.\r\n\r\nIf you have a computer with nothing but GPL software on it, you have total freedom to do anything you like with that software: You can install it on multiple machines, modify the code, do whatever you want. The GPL grants you complete freedom to modify and copy the software.\r\n\r\nIf you now want to start distributing that code, the only freedom you don't have is to take away the freedoms that you enjoyed for anybody downstream. And yes, that does mean that you can't release it without any restrictions, because then somebody else could build upon your code and add restrictions to it.\r\n\r\nFree speech doesn't allow you to make murder threats, slander somebody, or shout \"Fire\" in a crowded shopping center. And free software doesn't mean that you can distribute it any way you want: Your entire argument is completely self-centered - you're only ever considering that the GPL won't let YOU do something. You're persistently ignoring the fact that it's that way to make sure that everyone ELSE gets the same freedoms that you had. \r\n\r\nIf you take GPL code and release it under a liberal license, you're being coder A in the example above - nothing stops a coder B coming along, and then coder C loses out. So you're not free to do that. That's the whole point." - id: 6232 author: Luke author_email: Luke@ingerson.org.uk author_url: '' date: !binary |- MjAxMS0wMy0xMCAxNzoxNzowNCArMDEwMA== date_gmt: !binary |- MjAxMS0wMy0xMCAxNzoxNzowNCArMDEwMA== content: http://www.paul.sladen.org/pronunciation/torvalds-says-linux.ogg - id: 6536 author: Guest author_email: i.dont@think.so author_url: '' date: !binary |- MjAxMS0wOS0wOSAwODoxNjowMCArMDIwMA== date_gmt: !binary |- MjAxMS0wOS0wOSAwODoxNjowMCArMDIwMA== content: ! 'Andrew: I agree with you completely, but you''ve got an unfriendly audience here. I too spend a lot of my time developing MIT/BSD licenses projects, and like you (I presume) I don''t do so with the intent of making software proprietary.  I think that writing copylefted software is a waste of time and resources, but there are still some amazing GPL''d pieces of software.  It''s too bad people are so paranoid and restrict their high quality projects because of paranoia of having there source code potentially in stuff like Windows or the PS3. (Oh the horror)' ---

Richard Stallman at SussexYesterday I had the pleasure of attending a talk by Richard Stallman, the pioneer of the CopyLeft movement, at the University of Sussex. Stallman was speaking on the need to reform a copyright system which has outgrown the historical circumstances of its creation and now serves the mega corporations, such as Disney, as opposed to the majority of the population.

Stallman's speech was broad-ranging, from E-Book readers ("The Amazon Swindle") through the Sony rootkit fiasco to redefining copyright terms based on the category of the work (utilitarian: no copyright; art: copyright -- 10 years?). He was polemical in his call for a complete destruction of the record companies that deserve nothing more than obliteration for their complicity in attempting to take away users' freedoms.

A high point was, in my mind, the argument on schools breeding dependence upon proprietary software. While this demonstrates the fact that, for Stallman, almost every ethical principle can be deduced from parallels in the realm of free software, his argument did, at the end of the day, work: would you let a drug dealer inject children free of charge (gratis) so that, when they leave, they will be hooked on an expensive product?

While there was nothing new here (although Stallman did auction a toy gnu for £100 on behalf of the FSF at the end of the lecture), it was great to see the man in person. Also worth checking out is @Eingang, who live-tweeted the event and actually brought up something that caught my attention:

Interesting aside: Stallman pronounces Linux as Lihn-uhx. I'd say Lihn-ux and I've heard many Europeans say Line-uhx. #IET

Another good moment was the GPL vs. BSD-style (sorry, Richard, I mean: free, but weak) licenses argument. The programmer in question quite clearly hadn't read or understood the GPL (insisted that he couldn't sell GPL code; patently false) and then tried to argue that the GPL took away his freedom to encroach upon the freedom of others, something that Stallman redefined as power. In Stallman's view: when you ask for the freedom to exercise your will over others in order to restrict their freedom, this is power.

Finally, although I haven't had a chance to listen to it myself and can't therefore vouch for the quality of the recording (I can't listen to it at the moment as I'm in a library), I also made a recording of Stallman's lecture. This recording is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution No Derivatives license: Richard Stallman speaking at the University of Sussex.