"RMS sees the ability to hack your own system as a fundamental freedom. Computer as an extension of your mind/person. It would be like me telling you that you are not allowed think certain thoughts."
Under these rules, I should be able to include GPL source in a proprietary application and not have to release the code. It's my fundamental freedom to do as I wish with open source code. Yet, it doesn't work this way. People that do this get sued.
Well, as long as you don't release the application, you are certainly allowed to do that under the GPL. No one will sue you (furthermore how would they know?).
I like the mind analogy, it is sufficiently weird.
Lets say my friend Phil and his pet Demon have the technology to implant a calculus subroutine in your brain.
It is a little buggy, but overall it works pretty well, sometimes it will get the wrong answers, but it is about 80% there (the marketing brochure, however makes it sound like it is 100% accurate).
It is perfectly (and easily) within their ability to give me the ability to introspect the subroutine so that I can safely fix any bugs that I find.
But they do not, because then I would know how it works! I could potentially duplicate it elsewhere.
They in fact go to disproportionate lengths to make sure that the particular subroutine is a complete black box. They encrypt it and use a Vulcan mind-meld to wall it off from me.
For a while they push updates, to that corner of my mind, but eventually they go on to greener pastures (they get jobs as consultants or win big in the VC lottery), and I am left with a buggy, 85% understanding of calculus.
If we take the idea that the computer is an extension of the mind seriously, any sort of proprietary software is extremely anti-social behavior. If I create proprietary software and allow people to install it, I am cutting them off from little pieces of understanding and knowledge that they could otherwise have.
It is even worse if it doesn't work properly and I 'hang them out to dry' once they depend on it (i.e. stop fixing bugs).
I didn't come in here to argue that RMS is right, but there does seem to be some sort of moral or ethical issue behind this that is far beyond RMS getting upset that someone else is able to make money with his code. I suspect that he could make quite a bit of money not being the 'free software' guy, if it were mere jealousy.
"I didn't come in here to argue that RMS is right, but there does seem to be some sort of moral or ethical issue behind this that is far beyond RMS getting upset that someone else is able to make money with his code. I suspect that he could make quite a bit of money not being the 'free software' guy, if it were mere jealousy."
For me, the issue comes down to my own rights as a developer. If I sell an application with no source, nobody has a right to:
1) copy it freely to their friends
2) get my source
RMS gladly sacrifices the rights of a developer for the rights of a user and I just can't agree.
"If we take the idea that the computer is an extension of the mind seriously, any sort of proprietary software is extremely anti-social behavior. If I create proprietary software and allow people to install it, I am cutting them off from little pieces of understanding and knowledge that they could otherwise have."
The computer isn't an extension of the mind. It's just a tool.
"It is even worse if it doesn't work properly and I 'hang them out to dry' once they depend on it (i.e. stop fixing bugs)."
If that's the case, move onto another application. It's obviously working to some degree if you are using it. Even changes in operating systems won't suddenly make an application stop working (you can continue to use the old OS until you change to a new application).
Open source won't save you from this scenario. Open source developers stop fixing bugs all the time. I can't tell you how many abandoned projects I've seen on Sourceforge or Freshmeat. Sure, you could hire a developer to make changes..but you either have to:
1) hire a contractor (it's not easy to find a contractor that can get familiar with the code you need or is competent enough to get the job done in a timely fashion. This wastes lots of time and money (I know, I've been there).
2) Hire a full-time employee. So now, instead of paying a company $1000/year for bug fixes/updates, you need to pay a full-time developer 10X more.
3) wait for someone to pick the project up. This happens, but since most open source projects are a hobby for the developer, major bugs that you need fixed aren't a priority when the developer needs to pay the rent.
Some companies based on open source do offer support. But it's just as expensive as any other company. So it really offers no benefit.
Either way, Stallman, the pirates, and the zealots have pushed me away from selling software. This is mostly because many of the people from all of these communities feel entitled to my proprietary work. Over time, this is going to make it difficult for anyone to sell software (because everyone is going to just share it for free..and not care). So, all of my software ideas are now web service ideas. This is where software is headed. So now instead of paying a one-time fee (which is what I was going to do originally), you will be paying a monthy/yearly fee to use software (and you won't get anything even close to the source).
Under these rules, I should be able to include GPL source in a proprietary application and not have to release the code. It's my fundamental freedom to do as I wish with open source code. Yet, it doesn't work this way. People that do this get sued.