Comments

• linuxcanuck

  2011-12-19 13:02:22

  What an idiot of an interviewer! He never understood or attempted to understand what free means? He kept on cutting off RMS and looking at his notes when he should have been listening.

• Dr. Roy Schestowitz

  2011-12-19 13:04:43

  This worked out well for Stallman because the other guy seemed irritated and rude, unlike Stallman.
  
  Does anyone know if the interviewer will bother publishing an Ogg Theora version?

• DaemonFC

  2011-12-20 14:13:29

  I'm unaware of Richard Stallman making any perverse claims about children and sex.
  
  What I've heard him say on the subject, which could only be misconstrued by an idiot, is something to the effect of...
  
  Sexting (that is taking nude pictures of yourself and sending them to another person via a mobile phone) laws are overkill because they can put a teenager in prison for producing child pornography for taking a photo of THEMSELVES and sending it to a friend of theirs that is about the same age.
  
  I agree.
  
  He did not defend child pornographers, he simply said that someone should not be made a criminal for photographing themselves nude.
  
  He went on to mention that most people by age 16 or 17 have had sex. Unless every survey I've ever seen on the subject is wrong, then that too is correct. I had sex at age 17. OK, throw me in jail for it. ;)
  
  It's obviously not that RMS is a pervert, it's that you are an idiot who is warping what he said to fit your ad hominem attacks.

• Michael

  2011-12-19 20:45:35

  Why doesn't anyone ever ask Stallman about his perverted comments about children and sexuality? The press gives him a pass on this because he is influential in the computer world. You can bet Jobs and Gates would not be given such a pass.
  
  And it is massively pro-open source:
  
  The intro:

  The computer world is divided in two conflicting camps with two totally different philosophies. On one side are the corporations which sell programs and gain big bucks and on the other are the people who believe software must be free

  Utter rubbish. There are many companies who use both proprietary *and* open source software, and many who provide their software in an open format do so with allowing users even *more* rights than those advocated by Stallman. The BSD License, for example, allows users more freedom. And, of course, there is the problem with the ability to sell "Free" software - though really, that is mostly a red herring of the "Free" movement - selling that which you also give away for free is a stupid business model. But it is only the latter that Stallman even mentions.
  
  

  Most computer software has free alternatives

  This makes it sound like the "free" software is as good... which is clearly not the case (though it is *sometimes*, as a general statement it is clearly false - absurd even).
  
  Stallman:

  Developing free software is a sort of hobby

  Right... when many people want professional software. Not that there is not pro-input into open source software, such as from companies by Apple and Google, but a lot is from just people participating in their hobby. And, sadly, it shows. While there is a lot of excellent open source software, there are big areas where the open source software is severely lacking.
  
  Some other notes: Stallman completely lies and says that proprietary software controls its users. The interviewer lets this go and does not call him on this lie.
  
  Stallman:

  "Free" software is often available gratis, but not necessarily

  Another complete lie from Stallman. While you can charge for "Free" software, based on the GPL you also have to make it available gratis. Have to. You are not free to do otherwise.
  
  Stallman:

  There is no God...

  I agree - I am an atheist. But why push that in such an interview? Just bizarre and designed to push people away.
  
  Stallman calls "Free" software "a way of life". Amazing. Just amazing.
  
  Stallman:

  Free software combines capitalist, socialism, and anarchistic ideas.

  No. Not really. It is very anti-capitalist to want to take freedoms away as he does. Now to say it should be an *option* is completely consistent with capitalism, but that is not what he wants. If it was, he would already have it and be done.
  
  Stallman goes on and on about how software controls users - but he never says how. Because it does not. He made that up. It is utter silliness.
  
  Question: Why use open source ("Free" for the snotty). Stallman's response: he admits it is not about convenience or quality. In fact, he admits it is worth "making sacrifices". Stallman does not even pretend "Free" software will be as good.
  
  Then the interviewer openly mocks Stallman's BS about "freedom"... I wish he had done a better job of it, but good to see he did.
  
  Then Stallman goes off on how governments *must* use software he approves of an no other. Again, Stallman is pushing *limitations*, not freedom. His claim of wanting freedom is a lie.
  
  The Stallman spreads his lies about Apple products being jails - the only jail in the world you have to pay to get into and can leave any time you want. What a sad liar Stallman is! Even Stallman admits Apple products had high enough quality to make people want them - and he thinks this is *bad*. So not only is Stallman not concerned if open source software is of high quality, he thinks high quality is a *bad* thing - something he "fights against". What a frickin' loon!
  
  Then Stallman talks about how he does not like "open source" and whines about the use of the term "hackers"... and yet the software he pushes *is* open source! He claims to be against the very software he pushes... all over a silly semantic debate. He could have said "open source" includes things which are not "Free" an explained why... but since his ideas are loony he cannot explain anything.
  
  Stallman also talks about how he does what is "convenient"... completely going against his idea of doing what is ethical.
  
  And comments from the original source (of which you give no credit): http://rt.com/programs/spotlight/liberating-software-richard-stallman/comments/#10021
  
  

  Despite of the interviewer, Richard is doing a pretty good job at patiently and quietly transmitting Free Software gospel. Well done!

  Gospel. Right. It is very cult-like and dishonest and *anti-freedom*.
  
  

  It's was a pretty interesting interview. I just wish that Richard Stallman hadn't come across quite so... paranoid.

  Well, Stallman is a bit paranoid and insane. How else can he stick to his ideas that we must restrict freedom to be "free".

• Pawlerson

  2011-12-22 17:09:35

  [quote]The BSD License, for example, allows users more freedom. And, of course, there is the problem with the ability to sell “Free” software – though really, that is mostly a red herring of the “Free” movement – selling that which you also give away for free is a stupid business model.[/quote]
  
  The bsd license allows companies to take Open Source code and sell it giving nothing back. GPL is here to protect Freedom, but in the terms of code licensed under this license. It's not about stupid freedom like bsd. Red Hat, Google does pretty well when comes to selling GPL products. Android beats ios badly.
  
  [quote]I agree – I am an atheist. But why push that in such an interview? Just bizarre and designed to push people away.[/quote]
  
  Stallman's an idiot sometimes. Only idiots say there's no God. It's the same like saying there's no life in the space. How do you know?
  
  [quote]The Stallman spreads his lies about Apple products being jails – the only jail in the world you have to pay to get into and can leave any time you want. What a sad liar Stallman is! Even Stallman admits Apple products had high enough quality to make people want them – and he thinks this is *bad*. So not only is Stallman not concerned if open source software is of high quality, he thinks high quality is a *bad* thing – something he “fights against”. What a frickin’ loon![/quote]
  
  Stallman's right about apple. It's jail for developers and users. Yep, you can leave, but if you want to stay and get updates you have to pay! Apple sells low quality products compared to competition. The Open Source is about the highest quality unlike closed source.

• Dr. Roy Schestowitz

  2011-12-22 17:19:35

  It was not wise to polarise an already polarised audience by adding religious debate to a political/software debate, but the comparison you make to alien agnosticism is not a good one because aliens do not defy the laws of nature.

• Michael

  2011-12-22 17:48:18

  Excellent point. To say there is a god, as many believe God to be, is like saying there is a round circle. It is a logical impossibility... nonsense.

• Pawlerson

  2011-12-22 21:07:38

  You should say this to Stallman first. It seems you must be the greatest mind in the known world if you state what's allowed or not in the Universe. Btw. how do you know if Alinens doesn't defy the laws of nature? Close minded persons can't even imagine there can be different laws and reality. Ant mentality.
  
  @Michael
  
  To say there's no God is, like saying I believe in non probable probability.

• Michael

  2011-12-23 16:33:08

  If you define your God to have illogical properties, you can say there is no logical way He exists. But this does not prove that some sort of God does not exist - even if there is no reason to believe in one.
  
  So, unless you are being pedantic, I pretty much agree with Stallman that there is no God (as in there is no logical reason to believe in one and the one often described cannot logically exist), but I also agree with Roy when he says it was "not wise" for Stallman to talk about this as he did. It was irrelevant and polarizing.
  
  Then again, Stallman says a lot of stuff seemingly just to get attention - with no regards to how it makes the open source world look (or the "free" software movement).

• Michael

  2011-12-22 17:46:49

  The bsd license allows companies to take Open Source code and sell it giving nothing back.

  Right: this is one way the BSD License allows greater freedom - it does not protect the IP as strongly as does the GPL. And that is fine... I think it is great that there are both licenses and people can select how much they want to protect their IP and how much they want to restrict other people's freedom to use their IP.
  
  

  GPL is here to protect Freedom, but in the terms of code licensed under this license. It’s not about stupid freedom like bsd. Red Hat, Google does pretty well when comes to selling GPL products. Android beats ios badly.

  Stupid freedom? What? That is just silly. The BSD license allows for greater freedom than does the GPL... the GPL offers greater IP protection. Other licenses offer even greater IP protection. I am OK with all of that - but let us not pretend that the GPL is all about freedom - it is about protecting IP.
  
  

  Stallman’s an idiot sometimes. Only idiots say there’s no God. It’s the same like saying there’s no life in the space. How do you know?

  Stallman is an idiot a lot of the time (even though the GPL is great.. and would not exist without him, at least not as it is). As far as saying there is no god, it is like saying Zeus is not real. Sure, you cannot prove that... but you are talking in observable terms. There is no logical reason to believe in Zeus... which does not prove he does not exist but most people are perfectly happy to just say that Zeus does not exist and few complain about that.
  
  

  Stallman’s right about apple. It’s jail for developers and users.

  Stallman calls Apple's devices a "jail" - but there is no jail you have to pay to get into and can leave any time you want. It is a very, very poor analogy. Now I can see his problem with not being able to install non-Apple approved programs on iOS... and if he thinks this tradeoff is a deal breaker for him then he should not buy iOS products. I have no problem with that, either. Others prefer the tradeoffs Apple has made - better security, better user experience, etc. But it is a tradeoff and there are times Apple is just flat out wrong about its choices... and you cannot do much about it when they are.
  
  

  Yep, you can leave, but if you want to stay and get updates you have to pay!

  If I want to upgrade items on my car I have to pay. So what? Some updates are free and some are not. Why is this a problem, unless you are of the mindset that the world owes you everything for free? Heck, if I want to upgrade my hardware are you going to send me a more powerful computer for free? Of course not.
  
  

  Apple sells low quality products compared to competition.

  What is high or low quality is, in many ways, an opinion and you are welcome to yours. Looking at the *objective* data, though, we see that Apple products almost always earn the highest user satisfaction ratings. This speaks to high quality. They also have a greater focus on usability, productivity, error reduction and the like. This can be shows with comparisons of system consistency and other at least somewhat measurable metrics. But there are tradeoffs.
  
  

  The Open Source is about the highest quality unlike closed source.

  First: Apple is not pure closed source - they support and use and ship a lot of open source... more than any Linux desktop distro... likely more than all combined. As far as highest quality: there is a lot of very high quality open source software - Apache, WebKit, the Linux kernel, etc. All excellent. But there are also places where open source is not the best choice: MS Office / iWork vs. OpenOffice / LibreOffice, Photoshop vs. Gimp, etc. The closes source programs serve most people better than do the open source. This is easy to see: these programs are open and available to all for free... and yet few people opt to use them. Even when they do, they often do so for cost reasons and not intrinsic quality. And they often later migrate to the closed-source alternatives. We can look at specific features if you like - the idea that the open source programs serve people as well is just not what the data show.

• Pawlerson

  2011-12-22 21:11:45

  I would reply you, but I'd like to know how can I quote some text here. :)

• Michael

  2011-12-22 21:24:49

  All you need to do is type <blockquote> qouted text </blockquote>

• Pawlerson

  2011-12-23 16:26:12

  Right: this is one way the BSD License allows greater freedom – it does not protect the IP as strongly as does the GPL. And that is fine… I think it is great that there are both licenses and people can select how much they want to protect their IP and how much they want to restrict other people’s freedom to use their IP.

  
  
  You're right BSD allows people to do what they want with the BSD code, but GPL protects the code from competition. In other words GPL protects the code from being "enslaved" by proprietary projects and that's the freedom I was talking about.
  
  

  Stupid freedom? What? That is just silly. The BSD license allows for greater freedom than does the GPL… the GPL offers greater IP protection. Other licenses offer even greater IP protection. I am OK with all of that – but let us not pretend that the GPL is all about freedom – it is about protecting IP.

  
  
  It's stupid freedom when someone wants to compete using BSD license. The license makes BSD projects unprotected from competition. However, it's not stupid when it's not about competing with others.
  
  

  Stallman is an idiot a lot of the time (even though the GPL is great.. and would not exist without him, at least not as it is). As far as saying there is no god, it is like saying Zeus is not real. Sure, you cannot prove that… but you are talking in observable terms. There is no logical reason to believe in Zeus… which does not prove he does not exist but most people are perfectly happy to just say that Zeus does not exist and few complain about that.

  
  
  I don't believe in Zeus neither - there are no single facts or proves Zeus ever existed. Mythology is about... myths! Like the name suggests. :) I'm a Christian and we have something much more than mythology and there are historical facts in the Bible. However, it's still about faith, but let's continue. :)
  
  

  Stallman calls Apple’s devices a “jail” – but there is no jail you have to pay to get into and can leave any time you want. It is a very, very poor analogy.

  
  
  I think he simplified too much what he meant. Think of a "jail" in terms of your preferences. In example: you like Apple and you want to use their products, but they put you into the "jail" by some of their moves like you described later. While others can make their systems secure then Apple can this too without bad moves, I guess.
  
  

  What is high or low quality is, in many ways, an opinion and you are welcome to yours. Looking at the *objective* data, though, we see that Apple products almost always earn the highest user satisfaction ratings. This speaks to high quality. They also have a greater focus on usability, productivity, error reduction and the like. This can be shows with comparisons of system consistency and other at least somewhat measurable metrics. But there are tradeoffs.

  
  
  Sure, it's not the rule what I said. However, there's also marketing factor here and we both know there are hardcore apple fanboys. :) Once I saw some article with Apples user answering the lack of features in iPhone. They were always defending it and ignoring its weaknesses saying it's unneeded etc. (some features appeared later :>) . In the Linux world it's known as a Gnome syndrome. ;)
  
  

  First: Apple is not pure closed source – they support and use and ship a lot of open source… more than any Linux desktop distro… likely more than all combined.

  
  
  To make it straight - they don't support as half Open Source projects as a single, popular Linux distribution. I also doubt if they ship more Open Source - when we take a look at all Linux devices it seems Linux is much more popular - desktops, servers, phones, tv's, routers etc. What's the most important Linux is not only Open Source, but supports FLOSS movement unlike Apple.
  
  

  The closes source programs serve most people better than do the open source. This is easy to see: these programs are open and available to all for free… and yet few people opt to use them. Even when they do, they often do so for cost reasons and not intrinsic quality. And they often later migrate to the closed-source alternatives. We can look at specific features if you like – the idea that the open source programs serve people as well is just not what the data show.

  
  
  It depends. There are many Open Source programs that serve people better - Firefox, VLC, Chrome. There's very popular Linux based Android, too. Linux itself isn't so popular on desktops yet, because desktops are specific target and are very hard to conquer. It's often not only about quality, but also about people's preferences. It seems it's different in server area and enterprise. There are for sure many closed source programs that are better than their Open Source equivalents. I didn't clarify what I meant exactly - it was mainly about updates and security fixes. In the Linux world you get security fixes in hours while you have to wait sometimes few months in the closed source world.
  
  I'm not sure if I described exactly what I mean, but I hope you'll got the point. This site isn't good for debates. ;)

• Michael

  2011-12-23 17:04:36

  You’re right BSD allows people to do what they want with the BSD code, but GPL protects the code from competition. In other words GPL protects the code from being “enslaved” by proprietary projects and that’s the freedom I was talking about.

  That is not being "enslaved". The GPL offers greater IP protection. I am fine with that. But when people pretend greater IP protection (limitations on what people can do with the code) somehow makes things more "free" they are using 1984-like double talk. It is silly and disingenuous.
  
  Stallman and those of us who like the GPL like it because it is *not* as free, it allows the creators of the code to have greater control, and that greater control allows for some good things. Great. But let us not lie and claim the code allows greater "freedom". That is a lie.
  
  

  It’s stupid freedom when someone wants to compete using BSD license. The license makes BSD projects unprotected from competition. However, it’s not stupid when it’s not about competing with others.

  I do not think freedom is "stupid". It is not as if someone using my BSD licensed code hurts me or changes the existing code. But, sure, the BSD license allows for more competition - or at least competition in a different way. So? I have no problem with people picking either license... whatever pleases them. Then again, unlike Stallman and his supporters I am very pro-choice. I understand not everyone is as for choice as I am. I am OK with that, too. :)
  
  

  I don’t believe in Zeus neither – there are no single facts or proves Zeus ever existed. Mythology is about… myths! Like the name suggests. I’m a Christian and we have something much more than mythology and there are historical facts in the Bible. However, it’s still about faith, but let’s continue.

  Both the Greek and Christian myths have been believed by many through time (though the Greek myths were not as believed as many might think)... and there is no "proof" either is not true. I do not believe either, but have no problem with your believing in whatever you like - as long as you do not try to push your ideas on me. And I shan't try to convince you to be an atheist... if we tried to convince each other neither of us would succeed anyway. Again: very pro-choice here, too. Believe what you want as long as you do not do harm to others.
  
  

  I think he simplified too much what he meant. Think of a “jail” in terms of your preferences. In example: you like Apple and you want to use their products, but they put you into the “jail” by some of their moves like you described later. While others can make their systems secure then Apple can this too without bad moves, I guess.

  Android is not as secure as iOS, at least in terms of *actual* risk of infection. The idea that others can make their systems as secure is not true (or, really, not demonstrated to be true... sort of like God :) ). I prefer Apple products for some things, but not all. For example, I do not like their mice at all... they have gotten a bit better since the absurd "hockey puck" monstrosities, but none are even close to being good enough for my needs / preferences. I use an 8 button Logitech MX518. Neither Logitech nor Apple support that mouse on OS X (at least not all of its buttons and not programmable) so I use a third party driver. Apple not only does not discourage this in any way, when I ran into problems they helped troubleshoot - even sent someone to my house because they wanted this to work and could not figure out why it was not (all works fine now). I use lots of third party software on my Mac and my iPod Touch... Apple has no problem with this. But still, as I said, there are tradeoffs... and I use both Windows and Linux (mostly Mint) in a VM on my Mac. I am certainly not against either one (nor Android).
  
  I will say I do not respect when companies go beyond being inspired by the competition and work to make knock-off products... but that is inevitable, too. I do think when they go too far, though, there should be legal remedies. Apple thinks Android and Samsung (and others) went to far. With Samsung I have seen (and shown) what I think is overwhelming evidence of this... with HTC and even Android itself I think the evidence is less clear (or, really, I have not seen as much of a "smoking gun"). Roy, however, likes to pretend that the question here is already answered... and that Apple somehow is always wrong no matter how much others work to rip them off. But I digress...
  
  

  Sure, it’s not the rule what I said. However, there’s also marketing factor here and we both know there are hardcore apple fanboys. Once I saw some article with Apples user answering the lack of features in iPhone. They were always defending it and ignoring its weaknesses saying it’s unneeded etc. (some features appeared later :>) . In the Linux world it’s known as a Gnome syndrome.

  Apple has earned fans based, largely, on its products... OSS has earned fans based, largely, on its philosophy. As far as "missing" features, Apple tends to focus a lot less on a bullet point of features than it does on making a unified whole... this is a point lost on many folks who look just as specs. Apple is one of the few tech companies that understand it is just as important what you leave out as what you put in. With that said, I often disagree with their trade-offs here (I can give you quite a few examples if you wish). Still, it is better to be missing a few features than to toss in dozens which most people will not only not use but which add complexity and confusion to a device. You can always add features later, but it is not always easy to remove them (for marketing purposes). Again, though, I do think Apple sometimes errors on the side of not including stuff they should... and I can see where that would turn some people off. Tradeoffs. In the end, though, Apple products almost always earn the highest user satisfaction ratings... Apple earns loyalty and trust from its users. This is twisted as people being "fanboys" and worked to be a bad thing - as though pleasing your customers more than others is somehow bad. That is just silly. Pleasing your customers is a good thing... and Apple generally does it very well.
  
  

  To make it straight – they don’t support as half Open Source projects as a single, popular Linux distribution. I also doubt if they ship more Open Source – when we take a look at all Linux devices it seems Linux is much more popular – desktops, servers, phones, tv’s, routers etc. What’s the most important Linux is not only Open Source, but supports FLOSS movement unlike Apple.

  I was clear with the comparison being *desktop* Linux distros. I do realize Linux is in many other places. And I have no problem with that (in fact I think it is a great thing!) As as "supporting" the FOSS movement, Apple supports its users. I think that is more important. In doing so, though, they benefit the OSS movement a great deal.
  
  

  It depends. There are many Open Source programs that serve people better – Firefox, VLC, Chrome.

  I think each of those is fine... and each has tradeoffs. I use all three as well as Safari and IE (though IE mostly for testing websites) and I use VLC, QuickTime and sometimes others.
  
  

  There’s very popular Linux based Android, too. Linux itself isn’t so popular on desktops yet, because desktops are specific target and are very hard to conquer.

  Right: on the desktop Linux does not compete well. In other areas it competes very, very well - servers, embedded devices, etc.
  
  

  It’s often not only about quality, but also about people’s preferences.

  Desktop Linux does not serve people's "preferences" well... and the environment is clearly far behind in many areas: image editing, some forms of web development (though in others it is excellent), screen casting, even word processing and presentation development... on and on and on.
  
  

  It seems it’s different in server area and enterprise. There are for sure many closed source programs that are better than their Open Source equivalents. I didn’t clarify what I meant exactly – it was mainly about updates and security fixes. In the Linux world you get security fixes in hours while you have to wait sometimes few months in the closed source world.

  And on servers and elsewhere I think Linux is an excellent choice. I have multiple websites - all hosted on Linux, even though it would be absolutely trivial to migrate them on Windows and not hard to migrate them on OS X. Linux simply serves me best in that area.
  
  

  I’m not sure if I described exactly what I mean, but I hope you’ll got the point. This site isn’t good for debates.

  I understand. Or at least I think I do. :)

• Michael

  2011-12-20 14:59:55

  I’m unaware of Richard Stallman making any perverse claims about children and sex.

  I am not surprised - the media has given him a lot of attention recently but gives him a complete pass on this. It is rather repulsive. As I said, if Gates or Jobs had said anything half as offensive they would be all over them. Here are just a couple of examples of his repulsive comments - directly from his own site:
  
  http://stallman.org/archives/2006-may-aug.html#05%20June%202006%20(Dutch%20paedophiles%20form%20political%20party)

  I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren’t voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing.

  The idea that some pedophilia is "voluntary" is just sick. I have heard some of his cult claim that he *must* mean fringe cases, you know, where we are talking an 18 yr old and a 16 yr old or something... but that is just made up - not at all from what Stallman says.
  
  http://stallman.org/archives/2010-may-aug.html#09%20August%202010%20(Demonization%20of%20child%20pornography%20endangers%20US%20national%20security)

  If people are seriously concerned not to let children have sex in making porn films, they could use the approach that has succesfully eliminated cruelty to animals in films. You have seen the statements certifying that “no animals were harmed in making this film.” There could be a similar certification that “no minors had sex or were nude with adults in making this film.”

  Merely certify on films that no kids were sexually abused but do not make it outright illegal? The man is grotesque.
  
  But those are not even the most directly offensive, to me:
  
  http://stallman.org/archives/2010-jan-apr.html#29%20March%202010%20(Bikini%20Atoll%20off%20limits)

  Internet filtering in schools blocks access to educational materials. While that article focuses on blockage of the educational materials that prudes would admit, porn is also very important for education. Blocking adolescents’ access to porn, or keeping them ignorant of sex in any way, is likely to stunt their emotional growth and make them vulnerable to mistakes that can hurt them badly.

  Stallman wants to dishonestly redefine porn (including, if you look above, child porn) as "educational material" and make it available, uncensored, in public schools. Not only does he want it available, he wants public schools students to be *educated* by porn *in school*.
  
  Stallman is advocating a form of sexual abuse of children - which is not to say *in this case* he is advocating having sex with children (though he also says he is fine with that as long as it is "voluntary pedophilia".)
  
  The man is utterly repulsive. Beyond disgusting.
  
  

  What I’ve heard him say on the subject, which could only be misconstrued by an idiot, is something to the effect of…
  
  Sexting (that is taking nude pictures of yourself and sending them to another person via a mobile phone) laws are overkill because they can put a teenager in prison for producing child pornography for taking a photo of THEMSELVES and sending it to a friend of theirs that is about the same age.
  
  I agree.

  Nothing to do with the quotes of his I was noting.
  
  

  He did not defend child pornographers, he simply said that someone should not be made a criminal for photographing themselves nude.

  In that quote, sure. But that is not the quote being referenced.
  
  

  He went on to mention that most people by age 16 or 17 have had sex. Unless every survey I’ve ever seen on the subject is wrong, then that too is correct. I had sex at age 17. OK, throw me in jail for it.

  Again, not relevant to the comments of his I was discussing.
  
  

  It’s obviously not that RMS is a pervert, it’s that you are an idiot who is warping what he said to fit your ad hominem attacks.

  Clearly you were thinking in terms of very different quotes that I was - which proves my point about the media giving him a pass on this. To get the word out I planning on contacting media outlets who have had him on or will be having him on. Let them know of these quotes before they interview him so they can ask him about them. People should know how repulsive he is as a person...

• Pawlerson

  2011-12-27 14:31:13

  That is not being “enslaved”. The GPL offers greater IP protection. I am fine with that. But when people pretend greater IP protection (limitations on what people can do with the code) somehow makes things more “free” they are using 1984-like double talk. It is silly and disingenuous.

  
  
  It's not silly when such people mean their code will not land in non free environment. It depends on context.
  
  

  Stallman and those of us who like the GPL like it because it is *not* as free, it allows the creators of the code to have greater control, and that greater control allows for some good things. Great. But let us not lie and claim the code allows greater “freedom”. That is a lie.

  
  
  It's not a lie, because the point is about the code not about people who use the code. GPL enforces companies to give the taken code back in certain conditions. It's still about context.
  
  

  I do not think freedom is “stupid”. It is not as if someone using my BSD licensed code hurts me or changes the existing code. But, sure, the BSD license allows for more competition – or at least competition in a different way. So? I have no problem with people picking either license… whatever pleases them. Then again, unlike Stallman and his supporters I am very pro-choice. I understand not everyone is as for choice as I am. I am OK with that, too. :)

  
  
  In some conditions it's stupid. You don't care when someone takes your code, but you're not making entire operating system, I guess. Even fanboy like Theo de Rat acknowledges that BSD license sucks, because companies take the code and give nothing back. BSD doesn't allow for more competition, it's quite opposite. You can't compete by choosing BSD license. It will loose with GPL and proprietary projects, because they will take your code and you won't be able to take theirs. I'm also pro-choice and if I will work on some non competive project I could choose BSD. :)
  
  

  Both the Greek and Christian myths have been believed by many through time (though the Greek myths were not as believed as many might think)… and there is no “proof” either is not true. I do not believe either, but have no problem with your believing in whatever you like – as long as you do not try to push your ideas on me. And I shan’t try to convince you to be an atheist… if we tried to convince each other neither of us would succeed anyway. Again: very pro-choice here, too. Believe what you want as long as you do not do harm to others.

  
  
  Myths are myths, but like I said the Bible is not about myths, but about historical facts and testimony. However, the the Bible is full of symbols, too. Still, it's matter of believing and I won't try to harm you in any way. ;)
  
  

  Android is not as secure as iOS, at least in terms of *actual* risk of infection. The idea that others can make their systems as secure is not true

  
  
  I wonder how iOS is more secure than Android? I heard it's not following Linux philosophy, but I wonder what did you mean exactly. When comes to Linux distribution they are usually much more secure than Apple products. :)
  
  

  Still, it is better to be missing a few features than to toss in dozens which most people will not only not use but which add complexity and confusion to a device.

  
  
  It wasn't about features that people won't use. The features I was talking about were standard features in other smarphones and didn't introduce any complexity or confusion. From what I remember it was multitasking and others were related to calls and messages.
  
  

  Apple supports its users. I think that is more important. In doing so, though, they benefit the OSS movement a great deal.

  
  
  The same can be said about company like Canonical. It seems they're only one that care the most about end users in the Linux world.
  
  

  Desktop Linux does not serve people’s “preferences” well… and the environment is clearly far behind in many areas: image editing, some forms of web development (though in others it is excellent), screen casting, even word processing and presentation development… on and on and on.

  
  
  True and people usually don't like drastic changes, so if they were growing up on Windows or OS X it's hard to convince them to try something else.

• Michael

  2011-12-27 15:22:40

  It’s not silly when such people mean their code will not land in non free environment. It depends on context.

  It means they want more control of their code - more IP protections. That is not freedom for the user, that is control for them. When this is turned around and called "freedom" for the user it is a lie.
  
  This does not mean I am against IP protections or the GPL - not at all. I am all for it... I just do not like when Stallman and others lie about the GPL (a form a IP protection) and claim it is somehow more free than licences which allow for greater freedom for users.
  
  

  In some conditions it’s stupid. You don’t care when someone takes your code, but you’re not making entire operating system, I guess.

  You have missed my point: I have no problem with people protecting their IP! I am against *lying* about it when they do... such as when Stallman claims protecting his IP is making his IP more "free". That is a lie.
  
  

  Even fanboy like Theo de Rat acknowledges that BSD license sucks, because companies take the code and give nothing back.

  If you do not like it, then do not use it. Protect your IP with greater restrictions than found in the BSD license. This is fine in my book.
  
  

  BSD doesn’t allow for more competition, it’s quite opposite.

  Well, that is a bit silly - it allows the competition to have more rights to the code... but, sure, people do not like their IP to be copied and the protect it.
  
  Of course, when Apple does this Roy deems them evil and aggressive. Apple, it seems, is "evil" for not putting all of their IP into a license such as the BSD license. They have no right to complain about Samsung copying their IP, as they clearly have.
  
  This, of course, is a gross double standard on his part... welcome to Techrights.
  
  

  You can’t compete by choosing BSD license. It will loose with GPL and proprietary projects, because they will take your code and you won’t be able to take theirs. I’m also pro-choice and if I will work on some non competive project I could choose BSD.

  The core of OS X is protected only with the BSD license. Apple does very, very well with it. But if Apple had opted for a core protected with the GPL I would be fine with that, too. Either license can be used be a company and can be used in products which are very, very competitive.
  
  

  Myths are myths, but like I said the Bible is not about myths, but about historical facts and testimony. However, the the Bible is full of symbols, too. Still, it’s matter of believing and I won’t try to harm you in any way.

  What Bible is about "historical facts and testimony"? Not the Christian Bible. Believe what you want about God, but let us not make up stories about the Bible and claim it is something it clearly is not.
  
  

  I wonder how iOS is more secure than Android? I heard it’s not following Linux philosophy, but I wonder what did you mean exactly. When comes to Linux distribution they are usually much more secure than Apple products.

  Android has had many exploits that have affected real users. iOS has had none. Not a single piece of malware.
  
  

  It wasn’t about features that people won’t use. The features I was talking about were standard features in other smarphones and didn’t introduce any complexity or confusion. From what I remember it was multitasking and others were related to calls and messages.

  There are all sorts of tradeoffs with multitasking. Sure, it would be best if Apple had it there from the start... but things take time. Oh well. You would have to be more specific with other features for me to comment.
  
  

  The same can be said about company like Canonical. It seems they’re only one that care the most about end users in the Linux world.

  I have nothing against Canonical and have quite a lot of respect for Shuttleworth. He and Linus Torvalds and Jim Zemlin are all excellent "faces" for the OSS world. Stallman is not.
  
  

  Desktop Linux does not serve people’s “preferences” well… and the environment is clearly far behind in many areas: image editing, some forms of web development (though in others it is excellent), screen casting, even word processing and presentation development… on and on and on.

  True and people usually don’t like drastic changes, so if they were growing up on Windows or OS X it’s hard to convince them to try something else.

  First: thank you for admitting that the desktop Linux environment is "clearly far behind in many areas"... many in the OSS community try to deny this (then run in any detailed conversation). But, sure, even if it magically became as good as the competition today, it would take some time to spread and grow... even being free. This is not the fault of MS or Apple... this is just how the universe works. So be it. Apple has the same challenge as the "underdog" (who is not so small and much of an underdog these days). Still, they were predicted to fail repeatedly - with Macs, OS X, iPods, iPhones, and even the iPad. Each time they overcame such reluctance to change by making a *significantly* better product than the "leaders" at the time. This is what Linux has done with embedded devices - it is significantly better than how things were done before it. That is what is needed for desktop Linux to do well - it has to be *at least* as good as the competition (which it is not) and, really, significantly better.