Why I stand up for Stallman

[zridling]

Nice pieces by Jack Schofield and another by Dave Winer that get attention earlier this week:

"Stallman set out to write a free clone of Unix, single-handed, in 1983, and wrote the free Emacs editor, GNU C compiler and debugger and other programs -- a prodigious feat. He also founded the Free Software Foundation, and developed the GPL (GNU Public Licence) under which a great deal of free and open source software is released. GNU and the GPL have been hugely influential, and in this context, complaining about the fact that (say) Stallman likes parrots is ridiculously small-minded and conformist. Harmless eccentricities should be celebrated, not disallowed."


________________________________________
Leave Richard Stallman alone
by Jack Schofield
http://www.zdnet.co....lman-alone-10024721/

Why I stand up for Stallman
by Dave Winer
http://scripting.com...ndUpForStallman.html

[Renegade]

I read through the info packet. Interesting. Very detailed.

I can only say that my respect for Stallman only grows. I certainly can't manage to switch over to a truly free OS and software stack as I'd starve to death then. But I do appreciate it. Perhaps one day I'll be able to make the leap.

[zridling]

I love the part about "I like parrots, but if you have me over, don't go out and buy a parrot!"

And I wouldn't consider switching to free software only. However, it's the idea that I'm attracted to -- making a contribution, making the world a better place without it costing you an arm, leg, your privacy, all your cash, your data, your credit cards, etc. (Apple, Google, Facebook, Microsoft -- corporate computing in general). The best someone like Steve Jobs could do was take a 30% cut and tell you to be grateful you're allowed to even make an app. No one's perfect, but at least Mr. Gates uses his wealth to help humans.

[Renegade]

I love the part about "I like parrots, but if you have me over, don't go out and buy a parrot!"

And I wouldn't consider switching to free software only. However, it's the idea that I'm attracted to -- making a contribution, making the world a better place without it costing you an arm, leg, your privacy, all your cash, your data, your credit cards, etc. (Apple, Google, Facebook, Microsoft -- corporate computing in general). The best someone like Steve Jobs could do was take a 30% cut and tell you to be grateful you're allowed to even make an app. No one's perfect, but at least Mr. Gates uses his wealth to help humans.

-zridling (November 05, 2011, 06:02 PM)

In principle, I am really attracted to everything Stallman stands for. I just can't put food on the table that way though... I wish I could.

[mwb1100]

And rather than having a hissy fit about The Stallman Dialogues, a website carrying made-up conversations based on his "info packet", Stallman has linked to it from his humor page.

-http://www.zdnet.co.uk/blogs/jacks-blog-10017212/leave-richard-stallman-alone-10024721/

"The Stallman Dialogs" has to be about the least humorous thing I've ever read.  It's not funny.  It's not really insulting or offensive.  It's not interesting or clever.  It's just boring - not worth anyone's time.

[mahesh2k]

In principle, I am really attracted to everything Stallman stands for. I just can't put food on the table that way though... I wish I could.

Matt Mullenweg (Wordpress/Automattic/Akismet Developer) is one person who managed to make money off GNU philosophy. So i think it's possible, but it's lot harder than traditional business. Canonical, Red hat are other examples for making profit with GNU/OSS.

Making money from free software is no different than making money with brick-mortar business of selling sea-sand, filtered river water but here your business has no secret recipe and invites more competition but still you can make money. It's hard in software industry because there are some hidden variables that needs more attention otherwise making money like big corps is not possible. 

[rxantos]

Both Canonical and Red Hat are bad examples of making money creating GPL software. As they make money not of their work, but of the projects (and work) of other people. If at all they are an example of how to make money exploiting the people that released their software under GPL.

Most of the honest people that do make money of creating GPL software do on four ways:
- Premium support. Where you get paid to help people use your software effectively and/or to program private additions.
- Dual licenses. Where you offer one license GPL and another private for a fee. (aka MySQL and others)
- As part of a package you are selling. For example hardware.
- As a way to test the tools of a system you use internally for profit. For example gcc and notepad++. They do not make money from the compiler, but having a huge base of people that use the compiler means they can eliminate bugs and thus have more reliable tools.

Either way, you do not make money on the GPL software directly. You can see it like frosting on a cake you are selling. You do not sell the frosting, but it helps sell the cake.

EDIT: Made a mistake. Instead of posting a reply, created a new topic. Which I do not know how to eliminate.

[mahesh2k]

erm. Thats not a bad example, thats how gnu encourages people to make money with free and oss.In gnu/oss you're letting people reuse and remix, charge for your work. Thats freedom,not exploitation.You agreed to it in license.
Exploitation exists with cnet, softonic type distribution channels where they host your closed source free software by stealing and killing your search engine existence.

[mwb1100]

Both Canonical and Red Hat are bad examples of making money creating GPL software. As they make money not of their work, but of the projects (and work) of other people. If at all they are an example of how to make money exploiting the people that released their software under GPL.
ate.

-rxantos (November 06, 2011, 12:24 PM)

I don't know about Canonical, but doesn't Red Hat actually employ several important contributors?

[Eóin]

Plus you don't actually have to pay Redhat to use their software, you can recompile the sources yourself, or use CentOS.

[db90h]

...