Posted on 05/31/2006 7:19:40 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
Stallman-headed group's increasing politicization leaves a sour taste
When Richard Stallman created the Free Software Foundation (FSF) in 1985, it was organized around a radical idea: Software should be free, not just as in free of charge, but free as in the concept of liberty. During the next 20 years that idea turned out to be not just radical, but surprisingly practical. Beginning with Stallman's Emacs text editor, to the various Gnu utilities, the Linux kernel, and beyond, free software has proved to be an enduring success.
Much of the credit for that can be given to Stallman himself. Through his tireless campaigning, he has transformed this idealistic notion into something that the wider world, and even the business community, can accept and take seriously. Although it may not always be easy to agree with him, his arguments have been rational, and if nothing else, intellectually consistent to the last.
All the more reason to be disappointed by the FSF's recent, regrettable spiral into misplaced neopolitical activism, far removed from its own stated first principles. In particular, the FSF's moralistic opposition to DRM (digital rights management) technologies, which first manifested itself in early drafts of Version 3 of the GPL (Gnu General Public License), seems now to have been elevated to the point of evangelical dogma.
The FSF's most recent effort -- an anti-DRM protest staged at Microsoft's WinHEC conference last week, complete with demonstrators costumed in hazmat suits -- was particularly troubling. It signals a shift in the FSF, from an advocacy organization to one that engages in hysterical activism cut from the PETA mold.
(Excerpt) Read more at infoworld.com ...
Stallman is a radical leftist, whose admitted goal is to make proprietary software obsolete, and have everyone pay a "software tax" to the government instead. Unfortunately, many fall for his bribe of "free software for all", selfishly ignorant of the dangers it represents to the security and economy of the US.
It doesn't quite work that way. First, the consumer uses the copyrighted work. Then he gets sued. Then if he has enough resources to fight it instead of just getting steamrolled, he uses fair use as a defense.
The copyright cartel never liked the concept of fair use. Since even they can't flat-out have fair use revoked, they restrict content through technical means, then pay for the law to be changed to make illegal the means to exercise fair use despite the restrictions.
Aside from that, truly effective DRM can be dangerous in the long run. Works that are out of copyright (if Congress ever allows that to happen) will still be effectively in copyright when the copyright expires, since nobody will be able to access that public domain work without the publisher's permission.
I prefer the title "content restriction," since that's what I was using before the copyright cartel invented the term "DRM."
DRM only "SUX" as you say for those who have nothing of their own valuable enough to need protection, but who wish to remove the ability of others to protect things they have that are of value. In other words just because you may not have anything of value, doesn't mean there aren't others who do, who don't wany to give it to you for free just because you'd like to have it for yourself without working for it.
I can rip a cd to my hard drive without DRM...
Yes. I hear you are the official shill for them. :-)
whose admitted goal is to make proprietary software obsolete
Actually, no. He wants the for-sale software market to be obsolete -- the market will decide whether that happens, and the market will be right. Writing your own and keeping it to yourself or writing it for somebody under contract and they keep it (both examples of proprietary software) is fine with him.
and have everyone pay a "software tax" to the government
Like most leftists, he naively thinks the government is the answer for everything. I almost want this wish of his to come true so he can see how screwed-up the software would end up being.
Unfortunately, many fall for his bribe of "free software for all", selfishly ignorant of the dangers it represents to the security and economy of the US.
You still haven't been able to prove any net damage. Sure, some companies will go under because they can't face the OSS business model. That's also why there aren't too many buggy whip makers left.
no, someone else here is the official shill, i'm the unofficial one. :)
I have two copyrighted programs out there, and neither is open source. I hate DRM. I can always go after pirates the old fashioned way and ruin them with statutory damages. Nailing a dozen of them would more than compensate for any lost income, depending on the damages awarded.
but who wish to remove the ability of others to protect things they have that are of value
But who wish to be able to exercise their traditional rights in relation to copyright, such as fair use and first sale.
And if you decide to be an ass and say my programs aren't valuable enough to matter, remember that Avril Lavigne, Sarah McLachlin and Barenaked Ladies have all spoken out against DRM. Whether they're any good is irrelevant, as they represent millions of dollars of music income.
Once again you don't know what you're talking about, "make proprietary software obsolete" is listed as his "ultimate goal" right on his own websites. Go search for those words in quotes if you don't believe it.
As usual, you don't know the whole story. The bits about contracted software are on his site too.
If i were a musician I wouldn't allow music companies to put DRM on my music they don't own it I do.
They almost did. Several years ago a congressional staffer snuck a few words into a telecommunications act that added musicians to the categories of works eligible for work for hire, meaning the RIAA could own the music of artists completely, and forever. The RIAA denied it of course, saying it must have been a mistake by someone in Congress. Then they "worked with Congress" to correct the mistake and fix this threat to the artists that they protect.
Sounds good. Simple mistake, right? Except that they hired that staffer with a fat salary right after the law was passed.
I believe some musicians do not allow apple to sell their music on iTunes... maybe thats why?
Buggy whips were replaced by newer and better technology, not leftists giving away clones of buggy whips for free as part of their socialist dream for the future.
It's a metaphor for not being able to change with the times, numbskull.
No it's a stupid analogy free software freaks make all the time, and I just showed why. Of course leave it to you to claim our times are changing to Stallman's socialist utopia, which obviously isn't happening either.
Since you can't understand a metaphor, I'll try something more direct. IBM had a hell of a time struggling with the new business model that appeared with multi-vendor PCs. In fact, their lack of ability to envision this new business model lost them billions by letting Bill Gates keep the right to sell MS-DOS to anybody.
IOW, companies stuck in their old ways suffer with new business models.
Another poor analogy, as "desktop computers" were newer and completely different technology. That's nothing like foreign open source clones like Linux and MySQL, which aren't new technology but rather just inferior freeware dupes of our already existing products.
They didn't lose because of technology. Remember, they were the first to produce PCs, they were ahead on the technology, with others playing catch-up after Compaq started the legal clone business. What they didn't forsee was a business model where there was competition on the same platform -- kind of like how most proprietary software companies didn't forsee competition from another business model, open source.
That's nothing like foreign open source clones like Linux and MySQL
Hmmm, Compaq makes computers that behave like IBM PCs and compete with IBM PCs, Linus makes an OS that behaves like UNIX and competes with UNIX. Sounds exactly alike.
BTW, MySQL is a clone as is pretty much any other RDBMS used today, since they all mostly follow the same rules. MS SQL Server is a blatant copy of Sybase SQL Server, which came out years after IBM's DB2.
Probably the only true original RDBMS is DB2, which has its roots in the work of an IBM employee, Dr. E. F. Codd (another one for you to look up). The worst part for you is that Codd was a foreigner!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.