Richard Stallman Curated
American software programmer
CURATED BY :
You feel that patents for software, in particular, may not be a general good?
That's a bad bargain. Patents in the software are completely a bad idea because they obstruct progress instead of promoting it. But I was talking about copyright before. Don't ever try to talk about patents and copyrights together or generalize from one to the other. Almost every detail is different between them.
The term you prefer for your ethic is “free software,” where the word “free” means freedom from constraints and not free to take. But the term that more and more people are using is “Open Source,” a term of a quite recent vintage (1998), and, from your perspective, filled with significant problems. Of the two, free software is a term that implies an ethic of living and holds out the promise of a more just society; the other, “open source,” does not. Is that a fair statement? Would you address that issue, and clarify the distinctions for our readers?
That is exactly right. Someone once said it this way: open source is a development methodology; free software is a political philosophy (or a social movement). The open-source movement focuses on convincing businesses that it can profit by respecting the users' freedom to share and change the software. We in the free software movement appreciate those efforts, but we believe that there is a more important issue at stake: all programmers [owe] an ethical obligation to respect those freedoms for other people. Profit is not wrong in itself, but it can't justify mistreating other people.
Are we safe, can we trust our phone, even its switched off?
What are your comments on the "iPhone is a jail"?
Can you explain why did you comment on Amazon swindle by saying it has a backdoor to erase books?
What did you mean by software freedom?
Thoughts on getting free software in the future?