Linux

48314 readers

385 users here now

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
No misinformation
No NSFW content
No hate speech, bigotry, etc

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

128

We need more of Richard Stallman's ideas, not less (ploum.net)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

39 comments fedilink hide all child comments

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/1366698

Richard Stallman was right since the very beginning. Every warning, every prophecy realised. And, worst of all, he had the solution since the start. The problem is not Richard Stallman or the Free Software Foundation. The problem is us. The problem is that we didn’t listen.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I couldn't tell you why he believes such a thing, but this page summarizes this wrong belief.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This article doesn't necessarily make a statement on whether FOSS is compatible with capitalism. It could be that RMS encourages developers to charge for free software because it keeps FOSS projects sustainable while devs are forced to operate in a capitalist framework. It seems to me that the FSF has always refrained from directly making any kind of statement on capitalism, focusing (as the article says) solely on software freedom.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

By failing to make a statement on capitalism, it necessarily assumes the two are not in conflict. This is a bad assumption.

The business model suggested in the article does not exist. Companies which distribute Free Software make their money by selling secondary products and services, like Canonical or Red Hat's support services, Firefox's Google search integration, or System 76's hardware, not by selling the Free Software itself.

The ultimate goal of the FSF is that all software should be Free. With that in mind, the question we must ask is this:

Why is there nonFree software?

The answer is the profit motive. Without the profit motive, there would be no incentive to make software nonFree.

Consider the examples Stallman cites as the inciting incedents of his entire Free Software advocacy career: Xerox's printer drivers and Scribe's paywall. Why did Xerox refuse to share its driver source code? To protect its profits. Why did Unilogic ask Brian Reid to put time bombs in his code? To profit from their investment in buying that code from him.

To ignore this is fundamentally a failure, or a refusal, to understand the conflict the Free Software movement finds itself in.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

By failing to make a statement on capitalism, it necessarily assumes the two are not in conflict.

No it doesn't. Either there's no logic in that statement at all, or you're playing 5D chess with time travel and I'm playing checkers. While the article says:

Selling a copy of a free program is legitimate, and we encourage it

it makes no statement on whether this activity represents a sustainable business model, nor does it explore how selling FOSS may or may not affect other businesses. I said:

It seems to me that the FSF has always refrained from directly making any kind of statement on capitalism, focusing (as the article says) solely on software freedom.

because the article itself ended with:

When we defend users' freedom, we are not distracted by side issues such as how much of a distribution fee is charged. Freedom is the issue, the whole issue, and the only issue.

I don't (and can't) know whether the absence of discussion on FOSS' relation to capitalism represents a touch of myopia (as you suggest) on the part of RMS & the FSF, whether RMS intends to be the Gary Yourofsky of free software and it's a deliberate choice for the sake of optics, or whether it betrays a pro-capitalism stance, but my feeling is that RMS is more concerned about FOSS as a vehicle for the creation and preservation of a digital commons, and a safeguard against privacy violation, and likely doesn't have terribly many well informed thoughts and opinions on economic systems.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Since you've completely ignored my main point, I'll just repeat it:

Why is there nonFree software?

The answer is the profit motive.

Capitalism is not a side issue. It is the central issue.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

While you've ignored, or grievously misunderstood, all of my points, I didn't ignore yours; it just has absolutely no bearing on my position that:

This article doesn’t necessarily make a statement on whether FOSS is compatible with capitalism.

...and you haven't said anything that convincingly disputes that statement; if your very obviously correct point that profitMotive + softwareEngineer == proprietarySoftware was somehow meant to refute it, then I'm failing to see how.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Failing to state their incompatibility is logically identical to stating their compatibility. This is trivial.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Let me make sure I'm understanding:

If I don't tell you that I love bananas, then, logically, this means that I hate bananas?