in reply to Richard Stallman speaks at Hehigh University.

Richard Stallman seems to think that nobody should get paid for intellectual work except on commission, or if they happen to sell physical objects that contain the work.

Mr. Stallman has demonstrated that he can make a living while adhering to his principles. It's a good question whether anybody else can make a living while adhering to those principles.

  • Comment on Re: Richard Stallman speaks at Hehigh University.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Richard Stallman speaks at Hehigh University.
by Joost (Canon) on May 24, 2007 at 20:58 UTC
    Well, I've been working as a software developer for about 11 years now. I spent the first 8 of those years working as an employee for an internet/web development company. The last 3 years I've been working as a freelance developer.

    I've always been paid just to make/plan/design software. Some free/open source software, some for-sale products, but mostly custom software for use by a specific client (project ranging from a day's work to about two years).

    In all those years I've never been paid based on sales, I've just been paid based on work (i.e. monthly pay, billable hours or fixed-price delivery). As far as I know that's typical here (in the Netherlands).

    I'm not saying you can't get paid more if you can get another arrangement. One point I'm trying to make is that many programmers do get paid "on commission". The other point is that there is a hell of a lot of custom software that would (given market forces really would work the way I was taught in high school :-) ) cost about the same regardless of licence.

    "What should it profit a man, if he should win a flame war, yet lose his cool?"
[reply]
      My point is not that Mr. Stallman pursues the model he does. My point is that he seeks to prevent anyone from using another model. He thinks that proprietary software is wrong and that copyright and patent laws should not protect it. Unless I have badly misread much of his writing.
[reply]
        He thinks that proprietary software is wrong
        Perhaps he does. What's about that?

        But I think that he mainly means that proprietary softwares are bad for the softwares and for the users. And it's been since Unix entered the commercial world.

        copyright and patent laws should not protect it
        On the contrary, copyright (or copyleft per GNU's term) is meant for software protection beside FLOSS licenses.

        Open source softwares? Share and enjoy. Make profit from them if you can. Yet, share and enjoy!

[reply]
        A reply falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in.
        Well you've misread at least some of it. Stallman and the Free Software Foundation are not against copyright protection, they are against licensing restrictions and hoarding of intellectual property. My copy of GNU emacs, for example contains this phrase:
        Copyright (C) 1993, 1994, 2001 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
[reply]
        A reply falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in.
        Dosn't that reflect the complimentary (mirror-like ) nature of the cosmos?

                Gates                          ---              Stallman
free software is bad            ---       proprietary software is bad
software patents are good  ---      software patents are bad
suits                                    ---       socks and sandals
slave-driving capitalist        ---      freedom-loving anarchist
you serve him dinner          ---      he sits and eats with you

        [download]
        I'm not really a human, but I play one on earth. Cogito ergo sum a bum
[reply]
[d/l]
Re^2: Richard Stallman speaks at Hehigh University.
by Anonymous Monk on Jan 16, 2008 at 20:35 UTC
[reply]

In Section Perl News