Scan barcode
erikars's review against another edition
3.0
This is a collection of essays and talks given by Stallman over many years. The book is divided into three sections (4 actually, but the 4th is just a reprint of the licences). Section one talks about free software and the gnu project. Section two talks about copyright, copyleft, and patents. Section three talks about freedom, society, and software.
This being a book of Stallman essays, there is much to agree with and much to disagree with. I agree that that sharing is good, that software is increasingly fundamental to society, that DRM is stupid and any given DRM scheme is bound to be defeated, that laws saying DRM cannot be circumvented are harmful and stupid, that copyright is getting way out of hand these days (remember, the fundamental point of copyright is to increase the common good. Money making and the "ownership" of ideas is only a means to an end.), and that most software patents are extremely stupid and should be destroyed.
I do not agree that software should inherently be free, that companies should not have the right to attempt their misguided DRM schemes, or that the name "free software" verses "open source" is such a big deal (although I do get why Stallman thinks it is).
I agree that sharing is good. I think that open source software is good for the software industry. People often go on about how open source software is not innovative and contributes nothing to the greater landscape. Even if that were true (and I do not think it is), it misses the point that open source software can drive innovation in the software it is copying from, because that software needs to justify the higher price that usually comes with proprietary software. I also agree that sharing is good because sharing ideas and sharing techniques is a much more efficient way to get progress. Helping your neighbor is a good thing. I agree that anyone who argues that copyleft licenses are unfair is an idiot.
I agree that software is increasingly fundamental to society. This point was probably more relevant 10, 20, 30 years ago. These days, it does not take much to realize that much of our fundamental infrastructure from financial institutions to voting, are at least partially dependent on software.
I agree that DRM is stupid and any given DRM scheme is bound to be defeated. DRM is stupid. DRM is trying to enforce a universal quantifier. Forall users, they cannot get around the DRM scheme. All that takes to upset a forall is a there exists. If anyone can circumvent the DRM, then the DRM scheme has failed overall.
I agree that laws saying DRM cannot be circumvented are harmful and stupid. For one thing, there are many legitimate reasons to circumvent DRM. DRM often takes away fair use rights. For another, laws such as the DMCA are often used anti-competitively. Finally, laws like the DMCA make a tool illegal when it is the behavior (copyright infringement) that is the problem.
I agree that copyright is getting way out of hand these days. Lifetime + however many years it is these days does not provide incentive for people to make more. If fact, I would argue that it provides less incentive. It provides less incentive to the person who creates things because they do no have to necessarily create as much throughout their lifetime to make a living (that assumes the premise, probably false, that compensation and control are what drive creativity in the first place). It provides less incentive for others creating things because most creativity is based on borrowing ideas, especially ideas that still have relevant to other people. I will not even begin to rant about how it is not usually the artist who is receiving the bulk of the compensation anyway.
I agree that most software patents are extremely stupid and should be destroyed. Stallman makes the point that part of the problem is that software patents often apply to ideas that are really quite obvious (in the "there is tons of prior and contemporary art" sense, not in the "I could have thought of that" sense). Software patents also tend to be ridiculously general (this may be true of patents in other areas too). Finally, it is, in my opinion, legally kind of cheating to have the same software be covered by copyright and by patents. This does not really happen in any other area, and it is taking advantage of the fact that the "mechanics" of a program happen to be text and images.
I agree that sharing is good. Sharing ideas and sharing implementations is much more efficient than not doing so, and it is the nice thing to do. You learned how to share in preschool, why should you forget those lessons now?
I agree that anyone who argues that copyleft licenses are unfair is an idiot. If someone writes software, it is perfectly reasonable for them to say others have to make it free if they add to it. They should feel lucky that they have the opportunity to have their probably partially solved in the first place. If someone wants full ownership of the software, they can hire someone to rewrite it from scratch.
I do not agree that software should inherently be free. I agree that it is nice and wonderful and efficient and encourages more progress when software is free. However, I do not believe that software should always be free. Since it is perfectly possible to distribute software without source code, and since can provide some value, there is no reason to say that providing software without source code should be inherently wrong. Or, to put it more concisely, you might be able to convince me that voting software should be free and open, but you will not convince me that a sudoku game inherently should be.
I do not believe that companies should not have the right to attempt their misguided DRM schemes. This is similar to the previous point. I think DRM schemes are stupid, but I generally support people's ability to have the right to try stupid things as long as they do not cause physical harm to others. As long as people have the ability to choose not to use the DRM'ed products, and as long as people are not legally barred from trying to circumvent DRM, then companies can spend all the time and money that they wish on harebrained schemes.
I do not agree that the name "free software" verses "open source" is such a big deal. I understand Stallman's argument that "open source" is a term that is more friendly to businesses and that does not evoke the idea of freedom and that the free software movement is not just about better software, it is about freedom. However, I really do not think that most people who have not heard that argument before think about those things any more upon hearing the term "free software" than they do upon hearing the term "open source". So yes, fine points, but too subtle for most people, so not as big of a deal as Stallman thinks it is.
This being a book of Stallman essays, there is much to agree with and much to disagree with. I agree that that sharing is good, that software is increasingly fundamental to society, that DRM is stupid and any given DRM scheme is bound to be defeated, that laws saying DRM cannot be circumvented are harmful and stupid, that copyright is getting way out of hand these days (remember, the fundamental point of copyright is to increase the common good. Money making and the "ownership" of ideas is only a means to an end.), and that most software patents are extremely stupid and should be destroyed.
I do not agree that software should inherently be free, that companies should not have the right to attempt their misguided DRM schemes, or that the name "free software" verses "open source" is such a big deal (although I do get why Stallman thinks it is).
I agree that sharing is good. I think that open source software is good for the software industry. People often go on about how open source software is not innovative and contributes nothing to the greater landscape. Even if that were true (and I do not think it is), it misses the point that open source software can drive innovation in the software it is copying from, because that software needs to justify the higher price that usually comes with proprietary software. I also agree that sharing is good because sharing ideas and sharing techniques is a much more efficient way to get progress. Helping your neighbor is a good thing. I agree that anyone who argues that copyleft licenses are unfair is an idiot.
I agree that software is increasingly fundamental to society. This point was probably more relevant 10, 20, 30 years ago. These days, it does not take much to realize that much of our fundamental infrastructure from financial institutions to voting, are at least partially dependent on software.
I agree that DRM is stupid and any given DRM scheme is bound to be defeated. DRM is stupid. DRM is trying to enforce a universal quantifier. Forall users, they cannot get around the DRM scheme. All that takes to upset a forall is a there exists. If anyone can circumvent the DRM, then the DRM scheme has failed overall.
I agree that laws saying DRM cannot be circumvented are harmful and stupid. For one thing, there are many legitimate reasons to circumvent DRM. DRM often takes away fair use rights. For another, laws such as the DMCA are often used anti-competitively. Finally, laws like the DMCA make a tool illegal when it is the behavior (copyright infringement) that is the problem.
I agree that copyright is getting way out of hand these days. Lifetime + however many years it is these days does not provide incentive for people to make more. If fact, I would argue that it provides less incentive. It provides less incentive to the person who creates things because they do no have to necessarily create as much throughout their lifetime to make a living (that assumes the premise, probably false, that compensation and control are what drive creativity in the first place). It provides less incentive for others creating things because most creativity is based on borrowing ideas, especially ideas that still have relevant to other people. I will not even begin to rant about how it is not usually the artist who is receiving the bulk of the compensation anyway.
I agree that most software patents are extremely stupid and should be destroyed. Stallman makes the point that part of the problem is that software patents often apply to ideas that are really quite obvious (in the "there is tons of prior and contemporary art" sense, not in the "I could have thought of that" sense). Software patents also tend to be ridiculously general (this may be true of patents in other areas too). Finally, it is, in my opinion, legally kind of cheating to have the same software be covered by copyright and by patents. This does not really happen in any other area, and it is taking advantage of the fact that the "mechanics" of a program happen to be text and images.
I agree that sharing is good. Sharing ideas and sharing implementations is much more efficient than not doing so, and it is the nice thing to do. You learned how to share in preschool, why should you forget those lessons now?
I agree that anyone who argues that copyleft licenses are unfair is an idiot. If someone writes software, it is perfectly reasonable for them to say others have to make it free if they add to it. They should feel lucky that they have the opportunity to have their probably partially solved in the first place. If someone wants full ownership of the software, they can hire someone to rewrite it from scratch.
I do not agree that software should inherently be free. I agree that it is nice and wonderful and efficient and encourages more progress when software is free. However, I do not believe that software should always be free. Since it is perfectly possible to distribute software without source code, and since can provide some value, there is no reason to say that providing software without source code should be inherently wrong. Or, to put it more concisely, you might be able to convince me that voting software should be free and open, but you will not convince me that a sudoku game inherently should be.
I do not believe that companies should not have the right to attempt their misguided DRM schemes. This is similar to the previous point. I think DRM schemes are stupid, but I generally support people's ability to have the right to try stupid things as long as they do not cause physical harm to others. As long as people have the ability to choose not to use the DRM'ed products, and as long as people are not legally barred from trying to circumvent DRM, then companies can spend all the time and money that they wish on harebrained schemes.
I do not agree that the name "free software" verses "open source" is such a big deal. I understand Stallman's argument that "open source" is a term that is more friendly to businesses and that does not evoke the idea of freedom and that the free software movement is not just about better software, it is about freedom. However, I really do not think that most people who have not heard that argument before think about those things any more upon hearing the term "free software" than they do upon hearing the term "open source". So yes, fine points, but too subtle for most people, so not as big of a deal as Stallman thinks it is.
More...