You can't buy games from steam, you only subscribe to their service. So basically you are renting licenses from Valve to play games and they can terminate your subscribtion at any time they choose to.
If he was REALLY as "pure" about "intellectual property" as he claims to be then he would not have started out by writing a text editor that needed a proprietary compiler to compile and a proprietary operating system to run on.
But NO he chose the PRAGMATIC approach and then he turns around and chews out people for making the SAME pragmatic choices HE did.
If you can't parse the Mitt Romney reference, too bad on you. Is it politics to say that Washington had wooden teeth?
In a perfect world, Stallman's views would be considered quite logical and the only way to conduct business. I can see where he's coming from and why he's so adamant about it.
Unfortunately, we live in an imperfect world, so for now, we have to make due with this kludge of free/non-free software. Perhaps one day we will reach Stallman's vision (maybe with the accomplishment of A.I. and later on Singularity, who knows?). :)
They may be self-consistent and logical when examined by itself, but they fail when applied to our universe, populated as it is with human beings that do not think and act according to his wishes.
The simple fact is that intellectual progress is also accompanied by proprietary intellectual property. In many cases there is no incentive to innovate unless there is the capability to hide information from others.
It's not just in software. We do not get to see the failed works of art, they are destroyed by the author. So when the artist displays his latest masterpiece, it is basically "closed source" because we are not privy to any of the design work that went into the masterpiece. Other artists cannot benefit from seeing the learning process.
This is just as terrible and just as detrimental as closed source software, and yet nobody is clamoring for artists to release their sketchbooks or for painters to snap photos of their experiements before they put them in the trash.
The biggest problem with RMS's ideal, is that his world would have no computers to run the free software.
Who would be able to muster the resources to assemble such a large and complex device, without some sort of assurance of success? What banker would back a project whose resources could be freely copied by anyone?
What company would expend resources to make a better video card or faster memory if their competitors could freely copy it?
Tools may be free. The quality of service differentiates group/individuals from other. That is how Red Hat succeeded to be the first FOSS company to reach billions. Tools may have identical specification, the quality of build and compilation make one of them stand out. There is an adage stating that something can be imitated but never fully duplicate in term of success.
Seriously, Phoronix is nuts. Is everyone here a MS troll? :/
2nd. I'm sorry but life doesn't always play out the way you think it should have. I may be wrong, but if i remember correctly - he wrote a text editor first because he wanted a better tool to code with, and wasn't happy with existing tools. You also have to consider that he was working/using proprietary hardware/software ~ which was essentially all there was available at the time. As far as i am concerned a text-editor is as valid as a starting place, as any (within reason anyway, logically speaking). - but feel free to explain why you think it is such a bad place to start, when you plan on writing a lot of code, but don't like the tools you have to write them with...
I'm not a big RMS fan - as he is a bit to extreme for me. But i do appreciate what he has done, and (some) of his perspectives.
Wow. that isn't pragmatic at all - recognizing that this will likely do more good than harm. While yes, also being concerned about the negative effects it might have. ~ both hypothesizing and posing questions...Quote:
Originally Posted by RMS
then he goes on to talk of what this might teach users, and how non-free software works against software freedom, which in some ways is true and totally valid. you don't know what nonfree apps are doing on your machine and they also can interfere with software development.Quote:
Originally Posted by RMS
Then in his very last sentence he says;
..so he believes that if you truly want to promote freedom, not to promote these games. RMS doesn't use nonfree software in his computers at all (which obviously wasn't always the case, nor even possible way back when - but now, essentially is depending on what you do with a computer), that is his choice and from his perspective (and those whom share it) it probably doesn't make sense to promote any proprietary software, as they feel it is bad. - i'm not saying i necessarily agree, since i enjoy using some of the nonfree software that i use both at home and work on my linux machines / mac.Quote:
Originally Posted by RMS
but again, he isn't 'chewing' anyone out, nor 'trashing' Valve. All he has done here is share his perspective on Valve coming to linux, and his view of nonfree software.