QandA: Richard Stallman

This interview reminds me of the "good old days". It's incredible, the power of perspective, looking back the way I used to be (some would say a "stallmanite").

Today I could almost put myself in the "open source" camp, but that would be under special conditions, the conditions involving a world that is quite a bit different than it is today. No copyright laws, no legitimized coercion or in other words, no "government" as we know it. This changes the whole perspective on the proprietary vs free (as in freedom) software dichotomy in that the copyright law no longer matters (nor exists that is) and licenses are nothing but contracts that can be agreed to or rejected. And aside from those contracts the only other thing that matters is whether there is source code available or not. That becomes the ultimate differentiator between free software and proprietary software. Hence my being "almost" in the open source camp. :P

But this is not the world I'm in. In this world people seldom think about their liberties. They don't realize that while their rights are inherent they wont be recognized and respected until they recognize and demand them themselves. The free software movement thus ends up playing a convenient role of making people care a little more about the choices they make and the consequences of those choices on their personal power and freedom. This is another reason why I like the term "freedomware" to describe FOSS. I can split it nicely into what I think is the only remaining gist of free software that I support: freedom aware.

That awareness is really all that matters. Be aware that you can choose a contract that doesn't require you to give up your property rights to the software vendor by agreeing to a license enforced and artificially regulated by a coercive monopoly on contract enforcement (government). If they start thinking about their software choices they might start thinking about some even more fundamental choices concerning their personal power and liberty.

I know I did.

Quoting: @DiBosco You fail to understand RMS's issue. What you understand is the point of view from the software proprietor. Free software is not about price, free software is all about freedom. You seem to believe that people cannot make money through free software; this is false. You can charge as much as you want for software as long as you give the users their essential freedoms.

I don't believe I do fail to understand RMS's position. As I said, I am not trying to be inflammatory, but mulling over practicalities of human nature

I use free and open source software as much as I possible and always use it when I can. I did not say that people cannot make money through free software (in fact I make the counter arguments regularly when talking to people in day to day life about Linux). What I did say is that there are some situations where because of human nature and the type of people who use IDEs for embedded software, means, I believe, they would not make money, therefore all the work they do would not happen and I wouldn't have this excellent software to use.

Quoting: Your software may work today but you thought about the future when your software requirements change? With proprietary software are completely at the goodwill of the software master to help you when your software needs change; you lack the freedom to help yourself and so, you are helpless to help yourself. Don't be short sighted and rely on proprietary software. Value your freedom and invest your effort into improving free software.

My alternative to using this software is to run proprietary software on Windows! There is very little FOSS software indeed for developing software for embedded microcontrollers. I simply do not have the software skills to write PC based IDEs. Not to mention the fact that the w*****s who manufacture the embedded micros almost never release their on chip debug commands!

Quoting:I don't understand what you are saying in the last paragraph. Would you please rephrase it?

I develop software for eight, sixteen and thirty-two bit embedded microcontrollers (micros with flash, UARTs, ADCs, timers etc built into to them). These devices are made by the likes of Texas Instruments, Atmel, NXP (née Philips) and Freescale. These companies can only make sales if people can program their micros. To do that, they need software tools such as the one I am talking about (that is proprietary). Sometimes, the hardware manufacturers do release free (as in beer) tools or sell their own tools. Either way, more often than not, they are crap and they are always proprietary.

So, what the IC manufacturers could (and probably should) do is pay these third party people to write their tools for them under the GPL. However, they would be unwilling to pay lots of third parties I am sure. So, in the case of Atmel's AVRs, there were already four or five develoment environments available and Atmel would not pay for this fifth company to develop yet another toolchain. As it happens this fifth toolchain is the best now available and less than half the price of the next best toolchain. Therefore, the only option open to this fifth company is to charge money for their products and they would never make enough money to survive if it was FOSS (because there simply wouldn't be enough people will to pay for their software as a service).

Of course, and I am now going to answer a point you will make to me, if the IC manufacturers did pay people to release GPL based IDEs and they had issues, then it would be possible, as an end user, to pay someone to make changes or fork the project to work how people wanted.

I don't know whether that's any clearer and I am probably starting to ramble now.

I should say, btw, that I do admire RMS and all the work he has done. I am only trying to tackle the issue of practicalities that exist. :~)

Quoting:My alternative to using this software is to run proprietary software on Windows! There is very little FOSS software indeed for developing software for embedded microcontrollers.

I think I understand what you are trying to say. You would rather give up your freedom in order to do some practical work today rather than invest your time and resources into developing new software or improving existing free software. While this view is understandable, it is also foolish to live this way. The software works today but you are helpless to help yourself when the need arises; you cannot live in freedom.

Quoting:I simply do not have the software skills to write PC based IDEs.

I recently built a new house despite my complete lack of house building skills. Can you guess how I managed to accomplish this feat: I hired a contractor and architect to take care of all the intricate details and skilled work for me. The only work I did was to instruct these professionals what features I wanted in my house

What I'm trying to say here is your lack of time or skills is not an excuse. The freedom to help yourself comes with the responsibility to help yourself. You need to hire a programmer to work you.

Quoting:Not to mention the fact that the w*****s who manufacture the embedded micros almost never release their on chip debug commands!

Quoting:... So, what the IC manufacturers could (and probably should) do is pay these third party people to write their tools for them under the GPL. ...

Some company takes the time and effort to develop some software/hardware. In the case of the software, this company recovers the cost of software development through artificial scarcity and subjugating users of their freedoms. In the case of the hardware, the company develops a product with antifeatures - reliable documentation is an essential part of this particular product.

The company is at fault for not being creative enough to recover the cost of business in an ethical manner. The user of the software is also at fault for contributing to this scheme. These schemes of "lockin" are dangerous to a free society and should be avoided at all costs. "But what if there is no other alternative?" Once again, the issue of responsibility comes into play - the freedom to help yourself includes the responsibility to help yourself.

Always remember this: the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Don't be surprised if the price of freedom costs you a significant amount of time, effort or money.

> You would rather give up your freedom in order to do some practical work today rather than invest your time and resources into developing new software or improving existing free software. While this view is understandable, it is also foolish to live this way.

You're assuming that he has "time and resources" to "invest". He's stated he doesn't have the skills necessary. He's also stated that in many cases the information to do so isn't provided by the manufacturer. What exactly would you have him do, steal the necessary information and money necessary?

> The only work I did was to instruct these professionals what features I wanted in my house

And I suppose the money you paid them just fell from trees and all you had to do was gather it up? For most people in this world money=work.

> What I'm trying to say here is your lack of time or skills is not an excuse.

And you have no authority to say so. He's the only one who can judge the proper use of his time and resources, not me, not you, and not RMS. That's what freedom means. Or do you think the word only applies to software?

> Always remember this: the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

Especially of folks who would use a comparatively trivial matter like software to take it from you.

There's nothing wrong with saying free software is better. There's nothing wrong with saying free software is preferable for a host of reasons. There's nothing wrong with stating that, in your opinion, people should use free software wherever possible. There is something wrong with telling people who are in a better position to judge than you are that they're wrong for making the choice they've made. It's their choice to make, not yours.