Stallman Feeds Gates His Own Words 647
soloport writes "C|Net has published an article, written by RMS, in which Stallman points out that Gates is merely calling the kettle communist. Toward the end of the article, Stallman strengthens his point by feeding Bill his own words. Back in 1991, Bill said, in an internal memo: 'If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today's ideas were invented and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today...A future start-up with no patents of its own will be forced to pay whatever price the giants choose to impose.' Now, if only Bill were as clear-minded on the subjects of Innovation and Interoperability."
Or it could be said... (Score:5, Interesting)
Perhaps bill should heed these words (Score:4, Interesting)
Sad but true (Score:3, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Missed the best line (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course, he's twisting the meaning of things as much as Gates has, but of course that's the point.
Another way to look at it..... (Score:3, Interesting)
It's not uncommon to see young companies have the same type of attitude but along the way, as they become big, their strategies have to change based on the experience they have gained.
RMS is the driving idiological force behind GNU. People don't live forever. One day, someone else is going to take over and how do we know that the same ideals will be followed. More than that, how do we know that Stallman won't just decide one day that he's tired of living and dieing for free software and will shave his beard, take a shower and go on a date that doesn't charge by the hour?
Microsoft was the underdog for a long time. They came in cheaper and good enough. GNU/Linux right now is coming in as the cheaper/good enough solution. While there are some people that use free software on principle, the people paying for free software are doing it because it makes sense in their business... When something else makes sense, the money will follow.
One day, something else will take that spot and you're going to see a lot of whining and tantrums most likely followed by agressive tactics. To be perfectly honest, you see that now with competing open source technologies.
So, instead of seeing how Bill Gates has changed... consider this a warning as how F/OSS might possibly change in the future.
Re:Communists (Score:1, Interesting)
Wouldn't that make them capitalists?
That part always confuses me.
whack the stupid git (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Let the ubiquitous RMS bashing begin... (Score:5, Interesting)
That's what he always does. Love Stallman or hate him, man is a genius.
Re:In fairness to M$FT... (Score:5, Interesting)
They were clear in saying we/they were making a push to patent more, and that the patents are intended entirely to defend against litigation, as against "submarine" patents like those used in Eolas v. Microsoft.
Take it for what it's worth...who knows if that's just the official line and the higher-ups have a different plan.
People these days... (Score:1, Interesting)
-But, for the most part, if the world was a more ethical place, the standard of living would most likely be a lot better..
But, people are too lazy and non-cohesive - I see it all around me- people willing to take the easiest route even if it 'against good ethics'. They just ignore that fact -
For an example [and I know this is overused], people use cars a lot, causing a lot of problems (what to do with car when its end of life [landfill], what to do with pollution caused by cars [sick people], etc, etc) - however, I suspect if everyone was to migrate to electric buses, or trains, that these things could be reduced, and the (average) quality of life would get better. People usually don't, because cars are convenient, they are common, and people don't see them as being expensive when compared to buses (even though some of those views are incorrect).
So, people are unlikely to choose linux or mac over what their parents/friends have (windows) as they are lazy and see difference/change as a terribly difficult thing to cope with.
Therefore, we see people like Bill Gates floundering about trying to make as much money as possible from the lazy ignorant masses - and his current stance on patents is one way of making sure 'the rebel forces' cannot get a foot in.
I think its disgusting... and I don't like cars (I use the bus as much as possible) and I have a Mac laptop and 2 linux severs (along with a single windows box which needs to be reinstalled every other week).
just my $2.
Re:Eating Crow? (Score:5, Interesting)
If I am a big corp and I have a patent on X (let's say)
And startup "Wewantfunding" goes looking for money to implement their plan to dominate the world, the VC will say: sorry, no money for you, your idea is already patented by BigMegaCorp.
But it 40 hackers around the world are building FOSS, integrating some of the ideas of the patent into a radically new piece of software, then BigMegaCorp is screwed, because no matter how much money they spend (waste) on fighting this they can't recover it (since the 40 hackers are not a company--and they're poor(not even 1M between them all)). Plus BigMegaCorp will look like the bad guy and people won't buy their products (can you say Adobe (skylarov)), and they can't develop anything that uses their patent to compete, because the FOSS is most likely better and definitely cheaper, and they can't get rid of the patent because they mark it on the books as an asset.
So now, BigMegaCorp calls HugeCustomer and says: Hey we have this new product that you'll love, it's patented, so send us $1M!
HugeCustomer replies: "Hum, sorry, our admins just found this great little tool off the net that runs on linux and does everything your app does and then some."
Finally, the patents are a drain, because they weren't cheap to get, and the idea was either to develop and sell a product on using the patented tech, license them to third-parties that need those functions, or sue the daylights out of any startup foolish enough to release a product based on the patents.
FOSS makes all these arguments moot, and now companies are asking themselves why they should file for patents if they can't profit from them in the future.
So yeah, FOSS is kicking ass.
Two ironies here (Score:4, Interesting)
Both men are ideologues, and both, I believe, are megalomaniacs, despite my anticipation that Stallman in particular would strenuously deny such an accusation. But as ESR has said, Stallman wants to be the figurehead of the entire FOSS movement. His flowery speech at times aside, let there be no misconceptions about it...the man *does* advocate a heirarchy, and most especially he advocates himself as the leader of it.
The other irony is that Stallman himself is guilty of exactly the same kind of hypocrisy with which he accuses Gates here...Namely, with regards to the LGPL. Stallman at one point criticised [gnu.org] the XFree86 group for using a BSD-like license, calling them sellouts who were doing such in order to ensure that X gained popularity...and he then turned around later and did exactly the same thing with the creation of the LGPL. He actually cites software popularity as part of the reason for the creation of the LGPL. He might not remember this particular inconsistency...I, however, do.
I am not for one moment trying to lump both Stallman and Gates into the same *moral* category here...or not completely, anywayz. Stallman has done a lot of good...I'm aware of that. However, what I think a lot of *other* people need to be aware of is that he still isn't the being of light they think he is, by any stretch of the imagination. He might be different from Gates morally and ideologically in many ways...but the main things that the two do have in common is that contrary to popular belief, both are guided by their ego, and, to a greater or lesser degree, the desire to dominate others. That might sound paradoxical when said about Stallman in particular...but do some research on the man, have a good long think about it, and see what you come up with...you might be very surprised. For the purposes of Linux users, Stallman can definitely be considered an ally...but personally I think "friend" would be too strong a word. The man has his own agenda...and not one that necessarily coincides with everyone else's best interests.
Cut from the same cloth as Bill... (Score:4, Interesting)
Former Microsoft CTO Nathan Myhrvold obviously saw the intellectual property light: patent it no matter what and you'll own the toll-booth. Stallman's perspective is probably too little, too late and Gates' head has probably been here for years.
Myhrvold started a company five years ago (Intellectual Ventures) that is focused on a strategy to "create or buy new ideas, accumulate patents--exclusive rights to use the inventions--and rent those ideas to companies that need them to do the gritty work of producing real products."> [msn.com]
How is he doing this? As it says in the article, "To generate patentable ideas, Intellectual Ventures hired a dozen top scientists as part-time consultants to participate in several all-day gabfests each month, which the company calls "invention sessions." Lawyers transcribe the discussions, which can range from biotech to nanotech to solid-state physics, and follow up on the most promising ideas with patent applications." He's obviously the most visible person involved in this activity. Pretty soon (if not already) *any* idea you have had better be fully patent-researched before you embark on a new adventure.
IMHO, this activity by people like Myhrvold (and the bleak state of the US Patent Office) is what is going to seriously hamper open source innovation and people taking risks to start up companies.
Re:Competitive (Score:2, Interesting)
Communism, unlike capitalism, doesn't require competition, however. This is pretty obvious when you look just at how many different linux distros there are. In a competitive/capitalist environment, these would have all fought amongst themselves for market share until there were just a few left, or one.
This is why Gates & Co. hate the Open Source community so much. If Firefox was a regular corporation that made money off of sales, well, they *know* how to run them into the ground. After all, they've had lots of practice at running small corporations into the ground to secure their own market share. And everyone who uses Linux instead of Windows eats into their market share, as well. Since they can't compete economically, they have to compete legally. Becasue, from their point of view, it's the market share that's important.
RE: 'gov't and lawyers shutting down competition', this is standard practice for everybody. Mega-corps, mom&pops (who will lobby the local chamber of commerce to prevent big chains from entering their areas), communist governments, and the open source community, who are actively taking many issues to the courts.
IE, the gov't and the courts are the referees for the game, and are used by everybody.
Re:Well You know what they say about absolute powe (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Or it could be said... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Perhaps bill should heed these words (Score:5, Interesting)
You're ALMOST on to something. Except for the fact that Apple didn't take anything from IBM. And that, more than likely, Bill has his own past in mind when he looks at the GPL.
First - the early days of the Personal Computer. Apple pioneered the consumer personal computer market. Sure, there were microcomputers before Apple. But Apple was the first to put together a product that had such consumer-friendly features such as a keyboard and custom molded plastic casing. IBM dismissed the microcomputer as a niche market for hobbiests. That is, until the dawn of the spreadsheet. Visicalc revolutionized number crunching and made the Apple II a must-have device on the business desktop. IBM suddenly took notice of an exploding market. And since they were caught flat-footed, they had to rush to bring their own "Personal Computer" to market. This lead to several very important events. First, the OS was licensed from a third party rather than outright owned as was usually the case in computers until then. Secondly, in the rush to market, IBM's engineers selected mostly generic off-the-shelf components to create their product. The only gatekeeper in IBM's product was their BIOS. When a bunch of market-savvy former Texas Instruments engineers formed a company (Compaq) and managed to legally reverse-engineer that key... everything fell in place. The proprietary hardware market was soon dominated by the commodity PC. IBM lost control of their platform and was almost inundated by the wave that washed over the relatively young IT market. That wave almost swamped Apple too - Apple managed to maintain control of their platform. And in winning that battle, they lost. Apple went from being on the forefront of the microcomputer revolution to being a niche player; even further behind than IBM.
So what's the lesson for Bill? Microsoft learned how to play the game from IBM. Almost every detested aspect of Microsoft's business strategy is simply a refinement of IBM's earlier days. But those roles would soon change. The revolution of the commodity hardware platform was a boon for Microsoft. Every "PC clone" was an additional sale to MS. And every PC clone was further lessening of IBM's direct influence over the marketplace. IBM would have to work with a growing chaotic collection of hardware players instead of deciding the industry's direction by fiat. IBM attempted to recapture their influence with the PS/2 and the proprietary Microchannel bus architecture. But that was rejected. IBM became just one of many players in the market.
Now we're seeing the possible next stage; the commodity OS. Windows is just as important to Microsoft's financial and strategic success as the PC was to IBM. Most likely, Microsoft has a strategy in case they can't hold back the tide. But they would be better off if they can simply disrupt it.
Ironically, IBM has been spending the last couple years paddling to get in position to ride that wave if it crests.
Re:Let the ubiquitous RMS bashing begin... (Score:2, Interesting)
That is cause for mourning and is the prime motivation for all of his groundbreaking work.
The technology is certainly a critical component, but I have never seen RMS waver from his main commitment which is to his community of fellow hackers.
Re:In fairness to M$FT... (Score:4, Interesting)
<INTRORAMBLE>
I've worked for more than a few large corporations. Some for several years in various positions. There are probably more than a few others on slashdot that done the same.
</INTRORAMBLE>
<FACT>
All large corporations have their "corporate speak" which is nothing more than what the corporation perceives as politically correct messages. What the executives are willing to do and what they say they want to do have very little correlation to the official company messages.
</FACT>
<OPINION>
It is unlikely a corporation as large as Microsoft would openly say we plan to crush smaller players with our growing patent portfolio. But that is eventually what the shareholders will demand, even if the execs don't already plan it themselves.
</OPINION>
Re:Communists (Score:3, Interesting)
No, it's really not.
There's nothing about Stallman's idea that demand we all have equal ownership of anything or a state-controlled economy.
Even if a law was passed tomorrow that said all new software must be created under the GPL, the result would not be the end of programming as a means of gainful employment in a capitalist society.
Software producers would simply switch over to a bounty system. Organizations would be sponsored by groups with similar needs to fund the creation of mutually beneficial software.
In some ways it would actually be more like capitalism because the amount of money a software producer makes would be tied more towards quantity and quality of code produced rather than number of near-zero-incremental-cost boxes shipped. (In pure competition, all producers make zero economic profit.)
It's important to remember that copyright is not a fundamental part of capitalism.
Seriously, folks, the current situation of Linux v. Microsoft is exactly what Marx and Engels were talking about.
While it may seem like that's true at first glance, if you try and delve into the ideals in any depth, that's just not the case.
Stallman's open source is about the freedom of information, and not unnecessarily reproducing work due to a gov't granted monopoly.
Non-cooperation and gov't granted monopolies just aren't fundamental tenets of capitalism.
Re:Well You know what they say about absolute powe (Score:2, Interesting)
That way, you've gotta really want the job, and there's no point in accumulating favours for after you retire.
In fact, sounds damn near perfect..
Re:Nope (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Communists (Score:2, Interesting)
> we all have equal ownership of anything or a
> state-controlled economy.
There's nothing about communism that demands these things either. Leninism, Stalinism, and socialism in general certainly require state-controlled economies, but communism does not. Communism also only endorses the collective ownership of the means of production, ie factories and land. The whole idea is that the workers who actually produce an item get the economic benefit from it. The members of such a factory/commune democratically decide what to do with their product and participate in the market.
> Even if a law was passed tomorrow that said all
> new software must be created under the GPL, the
> result would not be the end of programming as a
> means of gainful employment in a capitalist society.
Of course not, but such a law would also never be passed *in a capitalist society*. It's not a capitalist's sort of law. And of course a capitalist orginaztion would find the most efficient means of maximizing market share, that's what it's designed for.
The whole point of my argument about Open Source is that it encourages, and almost depends upon, people who participate without economic incentive. Open Source products typically try to make the best piece of software they can make. Microsoft simply wants the largest profit, so they maximize the cost/benefit curve, ie, they spend as little money as possible to provide a product that is just good enough to eliminate their rivals. That's capitalism. Open Source is about constant revision and improvement.
> It's important to remember that copyright is not
> a fundamental part of capitalism.
No, it's just so useful that every capitalist economy has created it in some form or other, and the most capitalistic societies have created the harshest versions of it.
> Non-cooperation and gov't granted monopolies
> just aren't fundamental tenets of capitalism.
Maybe not basic tenets, but they are certainly natural outgrowths. Non-cooperation stems from the problem of information, and if a particular corporation has information that it's competitors don't, then it has an advantage in the market. As for monopolies, every capitalist system has naturally gravitated towards monopolies, barring a governmental decision to stop it at some point via anti-trust laws. As for the government granted part, I agree, but Microsoft's status isn't government granted.
> Stallman's open source is about the freedom of
> information, and not unnecessarily reproducing
> work due to a gov't granted monopoly.
Regardless of the reasons it was initially implemented, you have to look at why it's been successful. Information is still not free, and it's still necessary to reproduce work done by corporations who won't share. There has to be something else to it.
Re:Right... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Cut from the same cloth as Bill... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:In fairness to M$FT... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:In fairness to M$FT... (Score:2, Interesting)
Stallman is a conservative (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:What is there to learn? (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm sure Bill respects himself. He got from just being a nerd (yes, Bill was once one of us, too) to being the richest man in the world. We have to keep in perspective: there's more to the world than software, as RMS admits. What RMS does is right, but there's nothing morally wrong with what Bill is doing. I believe that they believe their software is better, and I don't think everyone will suddenly be happy if they all stop using Microsoft (although they won't be as unahppy).
I think Bill has moral clarity in some areas (not business dealings), especially since he's got a ~10 billion dollar charity organization (I think). And I think everybody admires him, unless they happen to be involved in free/open source software or happen to be emotionally linked to Macs. Nobody likes his software unless they're getting paid for it, but everybody admires him.
I don't disagree with you totally (Bill could learn from RMS), but I also think that Bill isn't totally evil and hated, as you suggest (gasp! heresy!).
Re:it doesn't matter whether they sue (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Two ironies here (Score:2, Interesting)
Gates is providing a valid reason for patenting as much as possible since innovation is grinding to a halt because of patenting. So, he is saying the patent system is bad, but that MS needs to patent as a result.
Stallman is pointing out that innovation is grinding to halt because of patents. So he is saying the patent system is bad, and hence patents are bad.
So they both actually agree that patents are bad, and they are both acting according to their principles in this bad system.
This is a the tragedy of the commons [sciencemag.org] situation, where the intellectual "property" commons is being fenced off by people now standing on the shoulders of giants [brainyquote.com] of the past. The people fencing off the property are preventing others from wandering into what used to be an open knowledge commons, a commons which in the past used to be shared. Because the resources of this commons are inexhaustible, there is no fundamental reason to restrict it. There is no fundamental reason to have a system of patents that make human knowledge subject to a land run [rootsweb.com].
That is why intellectual "property" is intellectual theft when you actually start examining the premises.
Gate's intellectual landgrab is quite legal, and hence not regarded as theft. Indeed, he is doing absolutely and clearly the right and sensible thing in the current system.
The way to fix the problem would actually be to do away with the patent system.
Re:Where's the "-1: Idiocy" mod option? (Score:3, Interesting)
marketing, bullshit and lying on the other hand, is another story...if you factor in the cost of forcing people to buy your software, and forcing people to enjoy paying your price, that may raise the price somewhat. whether or not this is necessary I'll leave as an excersize to the reader.
Secondly, ad hominem attacks are never a good plan. Then again, this is
Re:it doesn't matter whether they sue (Score:3, Interesting)
While IBM is not defending against patent claims, they are clearly using patent claims as a defensive measure.
It sends a very clear message to anyone else who might be thinking about the trying to mimic SCO.
Re:In fairness to M$FT... (Score:2, Interesting)
It's very consistent from human point of view, because natural cycle of life is one day long. Hour is more important than minutes (since minutes without hour usually means nothing), but mostly you know what month and year implicitly, so you only need the day (often just weekday is enough).
Wether time or date should be first is another matter (and often irrelevant), but it's most practical to put hours before minutes and day before month before year in everyday non-computer use.
Re:Perhaps bill should heed these words (Score:3, Interesting)
are you serious??? The "changes" he made in the world are far from being proud of. Basic has "tainted" more programmers than any other bad programming technique. Microsoft's business tactics created the nightmare world we live in now where software licenses can not be understood without a team of lawyers, and businesses selling computers with windows must pay per machine shipped if it has windows on it or not. Public bashing of other technologies, intentional changing of formats to break compatability with other companies and persons software.
There is not ONE good thing that has came from microsoft that was "world changing" Windows is not world changing, Office is not world changing, both of those existed far before Bill and Company decided to copy and extend them.
Bill Gates deserves NO respect. He has been an asshole from day one and has stayed an asshole. Ask anyone that has met the man. (Yes, I have met him. Most people can not believe how crass, rude and self serving he is. And I was foolish enough to look up to him in the early 80's. He is no genius in any way except business. He can convince companies to do things that most people would get thrown out of the building for.)
He spearheaded creating the Software Spanish Inquisition in the creation of the Business Software Alliance and then helped get them teeth that is only rivaled by the NSA it's self. Why can a private orginization get a supeona and use ATF agents for a civil matter?
If you admire or respect the man, I highly suggest you look into his past, see what he has done, and meet him yourself.
Even the most evil millionares gave money to children and the poor. Stalin was known for his public FUD like that.
I know this will get moderated into oblivion, but it's time someone here spoke the truth.
Bill Gates was an ass and a jerk at the beginning, and now with unlimited wealth and huge power he is a even bigger ass and a jerk.
target gates (Score:2, Interesting)
I hate microfost SOFTWARE it is low quality and I cannot make my own changes.
I do not hate microsoft, I just wish they made a better product and let me have some control over what I buy.
I do not hate bill gates, he worked to get where he is, he earned his own money, maybe through scheming, maybe through effort, maybe what someone sees as scheming to him appears as work. relativity folks.
Why is this relevant to this article? Well to denounce gates accusation of communism is fine, and to reverse the logic to show gates as a hipocrite is also fine. But stallman, the very intelligent absolutely brillian long time asshole went beyond that. As great as stallman is he is undisputedly arrogant.
The statements in here though making a valid point and reprisal are also very much a personal attack. It is like a media flame war between an arrogant asshole who has earned the right to be an arrogant asshole, and a man at the top of everything who has also earned his way there (though in my opinion it was with a crappy product). All this shows is that people at the top are no better and no worse than the flammers at the bottom. In the long run this article has accomplished little more than fortifying the positions everyone already had. In fact that is the only outcome of almost everything today. I ask has anyone here ever changed their opinion on an issue after holding it a long time based on something a popular/well known (ex stallman and gates) said tot he media? I f you have changed your long heald (5 years+) opinion based on this then please reply to this post and say so. But don't just say britney spears says war was bad so I am anti-war (yes I am going beyond patent law) and don't just say all my friends hate Bush so I decided I do too! State what opinion you changed, who said what sparked your change of opinion, and why you changed it. I do not care what the opinion is, or which side of the issue you are on.
ill-advised date formats from around the world (Score:2, Interesting)
However, I thought you might be amused to know that the United States is *not* the only nation that teaches children to use fundamentally stupid and broken date formats. Here are some of the moronic customs taught in other lands:
Russia, Germany, and Finland use dd.mm.yyyy, which is not entirely retarded since you can always sort it backwards.
Great Britain, Australia, Argentina, and Brazil use dd/mm/yyyy, which would be fairly sensible if they didn't also use dd/mm and dd/mm/yy. My grandfather was born in '99 and so was my son!
Belgium, France, Spain, Denmark, Portugal, and the Netherlands use dd-mm-yyyy which again is not completely asinine because you can sort it backwards at only a small penalty in efficiency.
Switzerland and Norway use mm.dd.yyyy which causes great confusion for their more intelligent neighbor nations. And of course any format that doesn't proceed from the largest unit (year) to the smallest (day) probably costs eight times the CPU power to sort (more if you don't zero-pad).
Italians often use dd-mmmm-yy with roman numerals for months, because apparently they don't quite "get" the whole concept of "efficient sorting" at all. This is so clabber-brained that the US notation would actually be LESS imbecilic.
The Japanese often use y/mm/dd where y is the year of the emperor's reign (currently 16 Heisei Era) which makes a completely numeric representation impossible (since you have to specify the Imperial Era if you want your work to last more than one generation). To make matters worse the proclamations that announce era changes (for instance, from Meiji to Taishou) are so couched in archaic formula that it is impossible to pinpoint exactly which day is the changeover date, and the first year of any era is never referred to numerically (it is always denoted by the word "GANNEN" instead). Many Japanese government documents are required to use this inane notation, which in the age of computers is essentially a puerile affectation.
Latin America and the USA use mm/dd/yy and mm/dd (and occasionally mm/dd/yyyy) because we can't stand to do anything the way the British do it, even though our way is inutterably boneheaded and costs us billions of dollars every year.
French Canada, Hungary, Yugoslavia,Czechoslovakia, Sweden and Poland use yyyy-mm-dd which you will note is actually the ISO standard. I guess somebody was bound to get it right, but I would not have guessed that these particular regions would do so. The Quebecois are probably doing it just to spite us.
So, I know you're all wondering, how many ways can we interpret 02/02/02?
Well, there have been 125 Japanese Emperors, so that's 125 ways right off. Then there's the whole "how irresponsible can we be with the month field" issue, so that gets us mm/dd/yy and dd/mm/yy and yy/mm/dd and yy/dd/mm (there's probably some culture out there that uses mm/yy/dd or dd/yy/mm, which is sort of the pinacle of thickheadedness, but I haven't yet run across any poor souls that have been so miseducated) so that's 129. Then there's that two-digit year... hmmm, we'll throw out future dates and everything BC so the number doesn't go instantly to infinity... still, that's another 21.
So we've got about 150 ways to interpret 02/02/02 (or at least 25, anyway, after we throw out the Japanese imperial poppycock as arrant nonsense) without even really trying.
Thank you and goodnight.
--Charlie
Re:What is there to learn? (Score:2, Interesting)