What do you think?
Rate this book
Free Software, Free Society: Selected Essays
The intersection of ethics, law, business and computer software is the subject of these essays and speeches by MacArthur Foundation Grant winner, Richard M. Stallman. This collection includes historical writings such as The GNU Manifesto, which defined and launched the activist Free Software Movement, along with new writings on hot topics in copyright, patent law, and the controversial issue of "trusted computing." Stallman takes a critical look at common abuses of copyright law and patents when applied to computer software programs, and how these abuses damage our entire society and remove our existing freedoms. He also discusses the social aspects of software and how free software can create community and social justice.
Given the current turmoil in copyright and patent laws, including the DMCA and proposed CBDTPA, these essays are more relevant than ever. Stallman tackles head-on the essential issues driving the current changes in copyright law. He argues that for creativity to flourish, software must be free of inappropriate and overly-broad legal constraints. Over the past twenty years his arguments and actions have changed the course of software history; this new book is sure to impact the future of software and legal policies in the years to come.
Lawrence Lessig, the author of two well-known books on similar topics, writes the introduction. He is a noted legal expert on copyright law and a Stanford Law School professor.
305 pages, ebook
First published January 1, 2002
40 people are currently reading
1177 people want to read
About the author
Richard M. Stallman
73 books124 followersRichard Matthew Stallman is a software developer and software freedom activist. In 1983 he announced the project to develop the GNU operating system, a Unix-like operating system meant to be entirely free software, and has been the project's leader ever since. With that announcement Stallman also launched the Free Software Movement. In October 1985 he started the Free Software Foundation.
The GNU/Linux system, which is a variant of GNU that also uses the kernel Linux developed by Linus Torvalds, are used in tens or hundreds of millions of computers, and are now preinstalled in computers available in retail stores. However, the distributors of these systems often disregard the ideas of freedom which make free software important.
That is why, since the mid-1990s, Stallman has spent most of his time in political advocacy for free software, and spreading the ethical ideas of the movement, as well as campaigning against both software patents and dangerous extension of copyright laws. Before that, Stallman developed a number of widely used software components of the GNU system, including the original Emacs, the GNU Compiler Collection, the GNU symbolic debugger (gdb), GNU Emacs, and various other programs for the GNU operating system.
Stallman pioneered the concept of copyleft, and is the main author of the GNU General Public License, the most widely used free software license.
Read more
The GNU/Linux system, which is a variant of GNU that also uses the kernel Linux developed by Linus Torvalds, are used in tens or hundreds of millions of computers, and are now preinstalled in computers available in retail stores. However, the distributors of these systems often disregard the ideas of freedom which make free software important.
That is why, since the mid-1990s, Stallman has spent most of his time in political advocacy for free software, and spreading the ethical ideas of the movement, as well as campaigning against both software patents and dangerous extension of copyright laws. Before that, Stallman developed a number of widely used software components of the GNU system, including the original Emacs, the GNU Compiler Collection, the GNU symbolic debugger (gdb), GNU Emacs, and various other programs for the GNU operating system.
Stallman pioneered the concept of copyleft, and is the main author of the GNU General Public License, the most widely used free software license.
Read more
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 34 reviews
May 19, 2012
When reading this book, it's important to remember just how seminal these essays are. Stallman may be weird and cranky at times but he's also one of the most single minded, visionary programmers there has been. He may not be as well known as Gates or Jobs but then he's always been more about the ethics than the product, and that may turn out to be the thing that ensures he's remembered long after his rivals have faded from memory. The right to read, the Gnu manifesto and what is copyleft? are all highlights.
May 24, 2018
A brilliant collection of essays which explains why we need free software (free as in freedom not in price, an unfortunate property of the English language) and how, since great software is always built using smaller software libraries, an ecosystem of copyleft software aligns the interests/forces the hands of the different players on the scene (Programmers, Managers, Businesses).
It's interesting to note the changing narrative of copyright through history. Copyright was never a right in the US constitution but a compromise to benefit the public by incentivising authors/artists by giving them a tradeable monopoly (backed by state violence) on their works for a limited period. The current discussion, however, is framed as an artist's right to her work vs the people's right to consume which is deceptive. The book also talks about the destructive effects of software patents and the difference between how they are framed (struggling brilliant genius gets patent and grows rich) vs reality (because of how silly software patents tend to be, large companies hold tens of thousands of patents and cross-license them only to each other thus stifling rising competition, patent trolls abound patenting all kinds of silly ideas etc). Also, the players who benefit from copyright are small, focused and will continue lobbying to increase copyright term limits (as has happened already multiple times over the past 30 years). All of us, on the other hand, face a coordination problem in opposing them.
The book also had some really good points about how a lot of the problems are around freedom vs convenience. That people are willing to give up some freedoms for some conveniences and while that isn't bad in itself, the fact that people don't really understand the value of their freedom (freedom being an underappreciated asset if you will) is troubling and will take us all to a darker world (I'll explain below). The freedom vs convenience debate is probably an eternal societal problem and to understand the value of our freedom is probably the first step.
As an example of how we can be "slaves to our conveniences" and why this is a real problem, consider this example. Company X holds rights to its software Y. It sells Y to people and people find it much more convenient than the open source solution Z and despite Y not being free software, they use Y. As more and more people use Y, company X aggressively funds schools to start using X. Over a decade, a lot of new graduates are proficient with Y but not Z. Company X now starts offering proficiency exams over Y, threatens to sue programs which modify Y, and nobody can modify Y even if they're running it on their system. Finally, everyone is using Y, businesses are using it and even graduates are trained in it. Nobody knows what's running on their systems and everybody is fine with it even when X installs backdoors on Y which allows them to (legally) remotely gain root access to their system, install/delete whatever they want and collect data.
Of course, as you probably guessed, the X is Microsoft, Y is Windows (the remote backdoor pertains to Vista's deceptively named trusted computing) and Z is an open source OS (GNU/Linux).
There's a lot more which I've missed but I've definitely enjoyed this book a lot and my perspective has changed because of it. I'll end with a quote I picked up from this book (because why not?).
"The love of liberty is the love of others; the love of power is the love of ourselves." - William Hazlitt
It's interesting to note the changing narrative of copyright through history. Copyright was never a right in the US constitution but a compromise to benefit the public by incentivising authors/artists by giving them a tradeable monopoly (backed by state violence) on their works for a limited period. The current discussion, however, is framed as an artist's right to her work vs the people's right to consume which is deceptive. The book also talks about the destructive effects of software patents and the difference between how they are framed (struggling brilliant genius gets patent and grows rich) vs reality (because of how silly software patents tend to be, large companies hold tens of thousands of patents and cross-license them only to each other thus stifling rising competition, patent trolls abound patenting all kinds of silly ideas etc). Also, the players who benefit from copyright are small, focused and will continue lobbying to increase copyright term limits (as has happened already multiple times over the past 30 years). All of us, on the other hand, face a coordination problem in opposing them.
The book also had some really good points about how a lot of the problems are around freedom vs convenience. That people are willing to give up some freedoms for some conveniences and while that isn't bad in itself, the fact that people don't really understand the value of their freedom (freedom being an underappreciated asset if you will) is troubling and will take us all to a darker world (I'll explain below). The freedom vs convenience debate is probably an eternal societal problem and to understand the value of our freedom is probably the first step.
As an example of how we can be "slaves to our conveniences" and why this is a real problem, consider this example. Company X holds rights to its software Y. It sells Y to people and people find it much more convenient than the open source solution Z and despite Y not being free software, they use Y. As more and more people use Y, company X aggressively funds schools to start using X. Over a decade, a lot of new graduates are proficient with Y but not Z. Company X now starts offering proficiency exams over Y, threatens to sue programs which modify Y, and nobody can modify Y even if they're running it on their system. Finally, everyone is using Y, businesses are using it and even graduates are trained in it. Nobody knows what's running on their systems and everybody is fine with it even when X installs backdoors on Y which allows them to (legally) remotely gain root access to their system, install/delete whatever they want and collect data.
Of course, as you probably guessed, the X is Microsoft, Y is Windows (the remote backdoor pertains to Vista's deceptively named trusted computing) and Z is an open source OS (GNU/Linux).
There's a lot more which I've missed but I've definitely enjoyed this book a lot and my perspective has changed because of it. I'll end with a quote I picked up from this book (because why not?).
"The love of liberty is the love of others; the love of power is the love of ourselves." - William Hazlitt
September 27, 2007
One of my friends ( Paul K. Moser) described this book as "Fractured ranting." While that might be a little harsh, it does come awfully close to reality.
Stallman is fanatical about his ideas -- and I'm pretty sure he would tell you that. And it is impossible to question the huge impact he has had on the ideological (and legal) aspects of software development. As the author of the original GPL (GNU Public License), he is rightly considered the father of both the Free Software Movement, and the more popular Open Source Software movement. Of course, he detests the Open Source monicker, as he believes that it has sold out on the ethical aspects.
But are Stallman's ethics really defensible? They certainly are not well defended in this book. There is, as Moser suggested, a lot of ranting. But the major propositions of the book (Namely, as Jamie Dow pointed out to me, "All proprietary software is morally evil") are not argued for.
As a collection of historical documents, this book is great. And it is certainly a source of insight into Stallman's motivations. But it is only mediocre in terms of argumentation. It is heavy on rhetoric and light on logical argument.
Ultimately, the question of whether Stallman's position is defensible is better addressed by Dexter and Chopra in Decoding Liberation.
Stallman is fanatical about his ideas -- and I'm pretty sure he would tell you that. And it is impossible to question the huge impact he has had on the ideological (and legal) aspects of software development. As the author of the original GPL (GNU Public License), he is rightly considered the father of both the Free Software Movement, and the more popular Open Source Software movement. Of course, he detests the Open Source monicker, as he believes that it has sold out on the ethical aspects.
But are Stallman's ethics really defensible? They certainly are not well defended in this book. There is, as Moser suggested, a lot of ranting. But the major propositions of the book (Namely, as Jamie Dow pointed out to me, "All proprietary software is morally evil") are not argued for.
As a collection of historical documents, this book is great. And it is certainly a source of insight into Stallman's motivations. But it is only mediocre in terms of argumentation. It is heavy on rhetoric and light on logical argument.
Ultimately, the question of whether Stallman's position is defensible is better addressed by Dexter and Chopra in Decoding Liberation.
May 16, 2024
A fantastic book about software, freedom and a touch of democracy, that may open your eyes to ethical or legal issues you haven't thought of before.
While I do not agree with all the things said in the book, as I do think that some of them are a bit extreme, I do agree with most of them, and I totally agree with the general spirit of the book and the GNU philosophy.
The first half of the book can feel a bit repetitive as some ideas are repeated many times (it's a collection of essays, not a written-from-scratch novel after all), but does give you a solid foundation about free software.
It does however have various bits of history about software sprinkled throughout that I quite liked.
The last few chapters are especially good and well-worth reading.
I think this is a book that should be read by everyone, and even taught in schools. You don't have to be a computer scientist to understand or care about this book, as it discusses freedom as it relates to software and freedom in general. It doesn't discuss software in detail.
While I do not agree with all the things said in the book, as I do think that some of them are a bit extreme, I do agree with most of them, and I totally agree with the general spirit of the book and the GNU philosophy.
The first half of the book can feel a bit repetitive as some ideas are repeated many times (it's a collection of essays, not a written-from-scratch novel after all), but does give you a solid foundation about free software.
It does however have various bits of history about software sprinkled throughout that I quite liked.
The last few chapters are especially good and well-worth reading.
I think this is a book that should be read by everyone, and even taught in schools. You don't have to be a computer scientist to understand or care about this book, as it discusses freedom as it relates to software and freedom in general. It doesn't discuss software in detail.
May 13, 2013
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.
January 29, 2015
Summary
“Free Software, Free Society” is a collection of essays by Richard Stallman - author of eMacs, primary contributor to the GNU operating system project, and the outspoken founder of the “free software movement”. The book serves as primarily as an introduction to the free software movement, an enumeration of its tenets, and a defense of its principles. As an introduction to Stallman’s values, the book is decent; as a defense of those values, it fails spectacularly.
While you’ll leave with a good understand of what Stallman believes, it’s never quite clear why you should, too. What’s left is a ranty compilation of redundant essays. A few are interesting in isolation, but taken together, they constitute a collection that’s ultimately not worth your time.
The Four Fundamental Freedoms
Stallman believes there is an ethical imperative for all software to be free, where “free" refers to freedom, not price (free as in "free speech”, not free as in “free beer”). For software to be free in the Stallman sense, it must grant its users the ‘four fundamental freedoms':
0. Freedom to run the program
1. Freedom to study and modify the program (i.e. access to the source code)
2. Freedom to redistribute the program
3. Freedom to distribute modified versions
Stallman goes to great lengths to explain what each of these freedoms imply. Unfortunately, he spends almost no time explaining why they're fundamental, inviolable rights in the first place. Stallman is more into asserting than he is into explaining, and as a result, his philosophy falls flat.
Silliness and Strawmen
While Stallman doesn’t present many arguments in favor of his worldview, his does offer a few rebuttals directed at his opponents. These range from silly to simplistic, and strawmen are strewn about.
A one point Stallman argues that the sharing of programs is “the fundamental act of friendship among programmers” (29), so by not letting people share code, we’re basically preventing them from being friends. Later we’re told that “signing a typical software license agreement means betraying your neighbor.” (47) Some of these statements are so silly as to not merit a response.
On the strawman front, Stallman spends a lot of time attacking what he calls the “economic argument,” which, by his estimation, goes like this: “I want to get rich… and if you don’t allow me to get rich by programming, then I won’t program. Everybody else is like me… and then you’ll be left with no programs at all!” (44)
Frustratingly, the real economic argument is one of the most potent practical rebuttals to Stallman’s ideas. Stallman’s actual opponents might argue that the option to keep your software proprietary creates an economic incentive, which results in the development of more software than you'd otherwise get. Unfortunately, Stallman’s imaginary opponents are a simple-minded bunch, and the misrepresented arguments presented make for irrelevant rebuttals.
Copyleft is Cool
Fortunately, Stallman doesn’t restrict himself to philosophy. He also delves into the practical measures he’s taken to further his cause, and copyleft - a type of software license - is perhaps the most interesting example.
Copyleft “uses copyright law, but flips it over to serve the opposite of its natural purpose: instead of a means for restricting a program, it becomes a means for keeping the program free.” (13) When you publish your software under a copyleft license, you effectively release it along with its source code, and you don’t place any restrictions on what people do with said code. Except for one: if someone else use your source code in their program, then they’re legal bound to make their program ‘free and copylefted.’
Copylefted software is “free,” and it carries the “virus of freedom.” It’s a neat idea, and one that’s gone a long way towards furthering Stallman’s cause.
Some Interesting Bits
A few chapters I genuinely enjoyed. In "Misinterpreting Copyright - A Series of Errors," I was surprised to learn that, when the constitution was being drafted, the idea that authors are entitled to a copyright monopoly was considered - and rejected. Instead, the founding fathers decided that intellectual property rights are just licenses granted simply so that society as a whole benefits. In other words, “copyright is not a natural right of authors, but an artificial concession made to them for the sake of progress.” (111)
There’s also an interesting discussion on the open source movement ("Why Open Sources Misses the Point of Free Software"). It turns out Stallman isn’t a big fan of open source, since it only cares about ‘practical values.’ In his words: “open source is a development methodology; free software is a social movement.” (84)
Conclusion
When all is said and done, “Free Software, Free Society” is a frustrating book.The writing is ranty; the essay selection is hap-hazard and redundant; and Stallman’s philosophical musings are disorganized and shallow. While some of the material is genuinely interesting, as a whole, “Free Software, Free Society” is a mediocre collection of unconvincing essays. I respect Stallman’s intentions and intensity, but conviction alone is unconvincing.
“Free Software, Free Society” is a collection of essays by Richard Stallman - author of eMacs, primary contributor to the GNU operating system project, and the outspoken founder of the “free software movement”. The book serves as primarily as an introduction to the free software movement, an enumeration of its tenets, and a defense of its principles. As an introduction to Stallman’s values, the book is decent; as a defense of those values, it fails spectacularly.
While you’ll leave with a good understand of what Stallman believes, it’s never quite clear why you should, too. What’s left is a ranty compilation of redundant essays. A few are interesting in isolation, but taken together, they constitute a collection that’s ultimately not worth your time.
The Four Fundamental Freedoms
Stallman believes there is an ethical imperative for all software to be free, where “free" refers to freedom, not price (free as in "free speech”, not free as in “free beer”). For software to be free in the Stallman sense, it must grant its users the ‘four fundamental freedoms':
0. Freedom to run the program
1. Freedom to study and modify the program (i.e. access to the source code)
2. Freedom to redistribute the program
3. Freedom to distribute modified versions
Stallman goes to great lengths to explain what each of these freedoms imply. Unfortunately, he spends almost no time explaining why they're fundamental, inviolable rights in the first place. Stallman is more into asserting than he is into explaining, and as a result, his philosophy falls flat.
Silliness and Strawmen
While Stallman doesn’t present many arguments in favor of his worldview, his does offer a few rebuttals directed at his opponents. These range from silly to simplistic, and strawmen are strewn about.
A one point Stallman argues that the sharing of programs is “the fundamental act of friendship among programmers” (29), so by not letting people share code, we’re basically preventing them from being friends. Later we’re told that “signing a typical software license agreement means betraying your neighbor.” (47) Some of these statements are so silly as to not merit a response.
On the strawman front, Stallman spends a lot of time attacking what he calls the “economic argument,” which, by his estimation, goes like this: “I want to get rich… and if you don’t allow me to get rich by programming, then I won’t program. Everybody else is like me… and then you’ll be left with no programs at all!” (44)
Frustratingly, the real economic argument is one of the most potent practical rebuttals to Stallman’s ideas. Stallman’s actual opponents might argue that the option to keep your software proprietary creates an economic incentive, which results in the development of more software than you'd otherwise get. Unfortunately, Stallman’s imaginary opponents are a simple-minded bunch, and the misrepresented arguments presented make for irrelevant rebuttals.
Copyleft is Cool
Fortunately, Stallman doesn’t restrict himself to philosophy. He also delves into the practical measures he’s taken to further his cause, and copyleft - a type of software license - is perhaps the most interesting example.
Copyleft “uses copyright law, but flips it over to serve the opposite of its natural purpose: instead of a means for restricting a program, it becomes a means for keeping the program free.” (13) When you publish your software under a copyleft license, you effectively release it along with its source code, and you don’t place any restrictions on what people do with said code. Except for one: if someone else use your source code in their program, then they’re legal bound to make their program ‘free and copylefted.’
Copylefted software is “free,” and it carries the “virus of freedom.” It’s a neat idea, and one that’s gone a long way towards furthering Stallman’s cause.
Some Interesting Bits
A few chapters I genuinely enjoyed. In "Misinterpreting Copyright - A Series of Errors," I was surprised to learn that, when the constitution was being drafted, the idea that authors are entitled to a copyright monopoly was considered - and rejected. Instead, the founding fathers decided that intellectual property rights are just licenses granted simply so that society as a whole benefits. In other words, “copyright is not a natural right of authors, but an artificial concession made to them for the sake of progress.” (111)
There’s also an interesting discussion on the open source movement ("Why Open Sources Misses the Point of Free Software"). It turns out Stallman isn’t a big fan of open source, since it only cares about ‘practical values.’ In his words: “open source is a development methodology; free software is a social movement.” (84)
Conclusion
When all is said and done, “Free Software, Free Society” is a frustrating book.The writing is ranty; the essay selection is hap-hazard and redundant; and Stallman’s philosophical musings are disorganized and shallow. While some of the material is genuinely interesting, as a whole, “Free Software, Free Society” is a mediocre collection of unconvincing essays. I respect Stallman’s intentions and intensity, but conviction alone is unconvincing.
February 22, 2022
Richard Stallman is probably the most influential character in the history of free software (and whether he likes it or not, the ideas are influential in open source circles as well). But until now, my reading on it and related topics only contained secondhand accounts of him.
I'm in a position where I could read and review with a few decades of hindsight, and it gave me an immense feeling of gratitude. The essays and speeches were heavily about how bad things could be if copyright and non-cooperation run rampant—so they gave me a feeling of how terribly things could have gone. There are disagreements in the implementation: do we strive for software that gives us liberty, or do we only care about the style software grows in? Stallman et al.'s ideas were probably the foundational piece of distributed, collaborative development for common pool resources. Not all software is developed under copyleft licenses, but I think we've agreed that developing software in the open and making it available to others is an inherently good idea—and now we're moving on to questions such as whether that software is correctly validated.
Insight from hindsight
There was an itch in my mind while reading this. In 2022 I'm pretty sure "Open Source" won out over "Free Software." There's no way I can fully quantify this statement, but I'd love to know how much of this is because of language problems.
From background reading, I knew that Richard Stallman was heavy-handed about words and branding. I've never met the man and I know you're supposed to use the phrase "GNU/Linux" instead of "Linux" around him. I knew about the insistence that people had to refer to the stuff as "Free Software" then follow up with an explanation that it was "free as in freedom, not free as in price." Sticking to messaging is one thing, but the lesson I'm taking away is that messaging should be workshopped instead of passed down from high command. If people aren't getting the gist without a twenty-minute explanation, something is clearly wrong.
One of my What If's I'd love to pose to the human history simulator is to see the alternate universe with a couple simple changes to the language. (1) Where the hard "G" in "GNU" did not exist (which might also be closer to how the word is actually pronounced?), it invites some simplifications like "gnunux" (new-nux) instead of the awkward "GNU/Linux." I laughed when Stallman wrote that "GNU/Linux" has fewer syllables than "Windows 2000," as if syllables were more of a barrier than the uncomfortable glottal stop in the back of my throat. (2) Similarly, it was obvious from the beginning of the story that "free software" left people extremely confused. Why not "Freedomware?" If the goal was "free as in freedom" all along, there was surely a missed opportunity to use the intended word.
Wanting to know more
This was partially a slow read for me because in the middle of each chapter I simply had to check out a Wikipedia article explaining the state of software patent law in the early 2000s, or the trends of the Supreme Court at the time. Stallman's knowledge bombs are probably the most coherent vision for what collaborative software development could look like, and are still relevant today. I already felt pretty far removed from the 2002 publication date, which really made me wish there was an updated edition which incorporated some historical footnotes on what was going on in the world that led to such articles or speeches being given.
But lo and behold, there is an updated version available on the FSF website. I'll have to re-read with updated materials when I pursue this topic next.
I'm in a position where I could read and review with a few decades of hindsight, and it gave me an immense feeling of gratitude. The essays and speeches were heavily about how bad things could be if copyright and non-cooperation run rampant—so they gave me a feeling of how terribly things could have gone. There are disagreements in the implementation: do we strive for software that gives us liberty, or do we only care about the style software grows in? Stallman et al.'s ideas were probably the foundational piece of distributed, collaborative development for common pool resources. Not all software is developed under copyleft licenses, but I think we've agreed that developing software in the open and making it available to others is an inherently good idea—and now we're moving on to questions such as whether that software is correctly validated.
Insight from hindsight
There was an itch in my mind while reading this. In 2022 I'm pretty sure "Open Source" won out over "Free Software." There's no way I can fully quantify this statement, but I'd love to know how much of this is because of language problems.
From background reading, I knew that Richard Stallman was heavy-handed about words and branding. I've never met the man and I know you're supposed to use the phrase "GNU/Linux" instead of "Linux" around him. I knew about the insistence that people had to refer to the stuff as "Free Software" then follow up with an explanation that it was "free as in freedom, not free as in price." Sticking to messaging is one thing, but the lesson I'm taking away is that messaging should be workshopped instead of passed down from high command. If people aren't getting the gist without a twenty-minute explanation, something is clearly wrong.
One of my What If's I'd love to pose to the human history simulator is to see the alternate universe with a couple simple changes to the language. (1) Where the hard "G" in "GNU" did not exist (which might also be closer to how the word is actually pronounced?), it invites some simplifications like "gnunux" (new-nux) instead of the awkward "GNU/Linux." I laughed when Stallman wrote that "GNU/Linux" has fewer syllables than "Windows 2000," as if syllables were more of a barrier than the uncomfortable glottal stop in the back of my throat. (2) Similarly, it was obvious from the beginning of the story that "free software" left people extremely confused. Why not "Freedomware?" If the goal was "free as in freedom" all along, there was surely a missed opportunity to use the intended word.
Wanting to know more
This was partially a slow read for me because in the middle of each chapter I simply had to check out a Wikipedia article explaining the state of software patent law in the early 2000s, or the trends of the Supreme Court at the time. Stallman's knowledge bombs are probably the most coherent vision for what collaborative software development could look like, and are still relevant today. I already felt pretty far removed from the 2002 publication date, which really made me wish there was an updated edition which incorporated some historical footnotes on what was going on in the world that led to such articles or speeches being given.
But lo and behold, there is an updated version available on the FSF website. I'll have to re-read with updated materials when I pursue this topic next.
August 30, 2011
Richard Stallman is an idealist above all else. Even he would admit that. What makes it somewhat unfortunate is the obstinate attitude that this then includes. I think he makes very good points regarding the need to change copyright and patent law in order to better reflect to the historical philosophy and underpinnings on which they ultimately have their authority, along with technological changes and the way people interact with software. however, his all-or-nothing approach seems tailored to turn most people off. the threat of loosing our freedoms hardly resonates with people today (even amongst the cries for freedom issuing from libertarians and the tea party) especially in the light of his proposed loss of the current economics behind software publishing. rather than work with anyone, Stallman would require a purity test. this can be seen in his (partial) rejection of systems like Ubuntu, or Red Hat, or even the term "Open Source." While I understand his perception that the stakes are too high to allow for compromises, that is based on the assumption that compromise cannot be made without losing one's soul in the process.
As with any applied philosophical system, idealism is necessary in establishing the new paradigm, but a certain level of pragmatism is crucial in order to gain a foothold against the competing paradigms. While free software (and I still prefer the term open source despite his protests of it being "inferior") is undeniably important, it will never take hold with those enamored with the cult of apple, or the necessity and ubiquity of microsoft based on principle alone. computers serve far too important of a role in our day-to-day lives, and given our customs and laziness, most people would never consider sacrificing current function for philosophical form.
But not all is lost. These essays do remind me of what is at stake in the long run, and the importance of supporting open source software - preferring it to proprietary software, not simply because one is cheaper today, but because we cannot nor should not close the door to future innovations.
As with any applied philosophical system, idealism is necessary in establishing the new paradigm, but a certain level of pragmatism is crucial in order to gain a foothold against the competing paradigms. While free software (and I still prefer the term open source despite his protests of it being "inferior") is undeniably important, it will never take hold with those enamored with the cult of apple, or the necessity and ubiquity of microsoft based on principle alone. computers serve far too important of a role in our day-to-day lives, and given our customs and laziness, most people would never consider sacrificing current function for philosophical form.
But not all is lost. These essays do remind me of what is at stake in the long run, and the importance of supporting open source software - preferring it to proprietary software, not simply because one is cheaper today, but because we cannot nor should not close the door to future innovations.
November 16, 2010
To start with the obvious: this is a collection of essays by the person who established the free software movement. They span a period of about 20 years and contain all the ideas Stallman is known for, so if you're interested in his thoughts, this is the book to get.
About the contents: these essays were written independently and not originally intended as part of any book, so some of the ideas explained here are necessarily reiterative, although I have to say that not as much as I had initially thought. These essays are also not meant to be read in any particular order, although they have been arranged as coherently as possible.
Apart from the very definition of free software, this collection deals with other subjects concerning freedom and knowledge in general, including the copyright system, patents, free culture and cooperation. Even readers familiar with Stallman's thoughts will find value in this book.
Richard Stallman is certainly a good speaker, but his style of writing doesn't stand out for being particularly elegant. Still, it's clear and to the point. But this is probably not a book for everyone: although it tries to appeal all kinds of readers, I think some technical details are probably not accessible (or even interesting) for the general reader.
Which leads me to my last point: this is a collection of arguments (some of them quite radical) advocating freedom and cooperation, but this book is mostly about software. Which leaves a strange feeling on me, since some of these ideas are completely valid for many aspects of everyday life, yet Stallman chooses not to cross that line.
About the contents: these essays were written independently and not originally intended as part of any book, so some of the ideas explained here are necessarily reiterative, although I have to say that not as much as I had initially thought. These essays are also not meant to be read in any particular order, although they have been arranged as coherently as possible.
Apart from the very definition of free software, this collection deals with other subjects concerning freedom and knowledge in general, including the copyright system, patents, free culture and cooperation. Even readers familiar with Stallman's thoughts will find value in this book.
Richard Stallman is certainly a good speaker, but his style of writing doesn't stand out for being particularly elegant. Still, it's clear and to the point. But this is probably not a book for everyone: although it tries to appeal all kinds of readers, I think some technical details are probably not accessible (or even interesting) for the general reader.
Which leads me to my last point: this is a collection of arguments (some of them quite radical) advocating freedom and cooperation, but this book is mostly about software. Which leaves a strange feeling on me, since some of these ideas are completely valid for many aspects of everyday life, yet Stallman chooses not to cross that line.
October 30, 2025
Introduction to Origins of GNU/Linux
An in-depth collection of essays regarding the Free Software movement. Stallman saw the implications of proprietary software and predicted Amazon’s restrictive approach to eBooks, 20 years prior, when eBooks were just emerging.
A Free Software Vision
Stallman defines freedom not as a social contract. Software should serve users, not restrict them.
GNU’s Early Achievements
A reminder that idealism was the very foundation that enabled the modern free software ecosystem.
Kindle and EBook Restrictions (~2004)
Written years before mainstream DRM debates, Stallman's warning about Amazon's "Swindle" remains startlingly relevant.
A Proposal Towards Evaluating Software
Freedom is argued as a civic principle. Convenience cannot justify surrendering control.
Recommended, even if only for visiting chapters of interest. Stallman's initial vision isn't obvious in the current Open Source space, and these essays embody the initial movement well.
An in-depth collection of essays regarding the Free Software movement. Stallman saw the implications of proprietary software and predicted Amazon’s restrictive approach to eBooks, 20 years prior, when eBooks were just emerging.
A Free Software Vision
My vision of the world is different. I would like to see a world in which all the software in our computers — in our desktop PCs, our laptops, our handhelds, our phones — is under our control and respects our freedom... With the users in control of the software, nobody has power to impose nasty features on others.
— Chapter 40, Computing “Progress”: Good and Bad
Stallman defines freedom not as a social contract. Software should serve users, not restrict them.
GNU’s Early Achievements
The GNU Project is idealistic, and anyone encouraging idealism today faces a great obstacle: the prevailing ideology encourages people to dismiss idealism as “impractical.” Our idealism has been extremely practical: it is the reason we have a free GNU/Linux operating system. People who love this system ought to know that it is our idealism made real.
— Chapter 14, Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software
A reminder that idealism was the very foundation that enabled the modern free software ecosystem.
Kindle and EBook Restrictions (~2004)
Imagine: no more used book stores; no more lending a book to your friend; no more borrowing one from the public library—no more “leaks” that might give someone a chance to read without paying. No more purchasing a book anonymously with cash—you can only buy an e-book with a credit card. That is the world the publishers want to impose on us.
— Chapter 28, The GNU General Public License
Written years before mainstream DRM debates, Stallman's warning about Amazon's "Swindle" remains startlingly relevant.
A Proposal Towards Evaluating Software
To establish a free community fully and lastingly, we need to do more than get people to use some free software. We need to spread the idea of judging software (and other things) on “citizen values,” based on whether it respects users’ freedom and community, not just in terms of convenience. Then people will not fall into the trap of a proprietary program baited by an attractive, convenient feature.
— Chapter 41, Avoiding Ruinous Compromises
Freedom is argued as a civic principle. Convenience cannot justify surrendering control.
Recommended, even if only for visiting chapters of interest. Stallman's initial vision isn't obvious in the current Open Source space, and these essays embody the initial movement well.
May 15, 2018
A great collection of excellent essays by Richard Stallman on the philosophy and practice of the free software movement. The writing is very direct, concise and persuasive, and accessible (to an extent) to people who don't have a lot of knowledge or experience with software and computers. Reading through the whole book can feel a bit repetitive, however, since many of the essays are independent and thus have to repeat some of the basic arguments; this is probably best seen as a very good reference book, especially since it has the texts of the free software licenses themselves.
September 10, 2017
The understanding of Software Licences, Patents, Copyrights is essential in this era of Development. These selected essays could give a clear idea of Free Software Terms, What license to apply? etc. Overall, a good read initially.
May 30, 2018
As this is written by Dr. Stallman himself, it is quite repetitive at times; however only the most important or essential bits are repeated. This is an essential book for any software developer who has even the tiniest sight of morals left.
Want to read
April 26, 2018
April 24, 2019
Interesting ideas on free software, open source, patents, copyrights and licenses.
September 16, 2020
Richard Stallman could sound exaggerated on some of his ideas, BUT I think is important to remember how different where the software world on his time.
It was not visible at all that we could have all the freedom in software that we have these days.
The nowadays supremacy on the Open Source could have sound ridiculous on the times where Microsoft and Oracle were abusing their positions on the market with their legion of lawyers, thinking it from that point of view, the ideas of Stallman makes total sense.
How corporations could abuse of the copyright laws is explained in the book.
Also, in the end, we have a nice explanation for every type of free license.
Very recommended! :)
It was not visible at all that we could have all the freedom in software that we have these days.
The nowadays supremacy on the Open Source could have sound ridiculous on the times where Microsoft and Oracle were abusing their positions on the market with their legion of lawyers, thinking it from that point of view, the ideas of Stallman makes total sense.
How corporations could abuse of the copyright laws is explained in the book.
Also, in the end, we have a nice explanation for every type of free license.
Very recommended! :)
January 22, 2021
Stallman often rubs people the wrong way. And sometimes he can be cringy bordering on creepy. But if you separate Stallman the activist from Stallman the person, there are a lot of things he got right.
This collection of essays is a deep dive into the free software movement. While some of the essays are poignant, some fell flat for me. But the good ones made a very strong point on why we should protect our freedom.
This collection of essays is a deep dive into the free software movement. While some of the essays are poignant, some fell flat for me. But the good ones made a very strong point on why we should protect our freedom.
August 25, 2013
When it comes to the social impact of technology, there are few people quite as passionate about the subject as Dr Richard Stallman. As founder of the Free Software Foundation, Stallman has for at least the last three decades been the most prominent advocate for ‘free software’. As he reminds us throughout his book, the ‘free’ in free software refers to freedom rather than any monetary value. He defines the four key characteristics of free software as follows:
A program is free software if the program’s users have the four essential freedoms:
The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
Understanding the above is crucial, for it serves as the foundation of Stallman’s approach to software and society. The latter in particular is what sets Stallman apart from many others, for he believes that the free software ideal is a social movement that must be fought for at every turn.
Reading his thoughts on the subject, one finds an often uncompromising and idealistic attitude that sees the fight for free software as an ongoing battle for human liberty.
As a programmer himself, Stallman shares with us his own early experiences at MIT and how restrictive proprietary software helped to shape his views.
Later interesting essays touch on the importance of free software in schools, why science must push copyright aside, the problems with DRM and why he prefers the term ‘free software’ instead of ‘open source’.
As well as arguing for the many benefits of free software in all of these areas, he suggests that the use of offering discounted proprietary software to schools is a strategy to get users hooked on such software from an early age.
He frequently also touches on the security implications of using proprietary hardware and software. Since such technology takes control out of the hands of the user and uses hidden code, we can never be certain of what it is doing without our knowledge – whether this be tracking or using back-doors for malicious intent. All such users effectively have to place blind faith in the provider and be willing to cede control.
As well as discussing the importance of copyleft licenses, His essays touch on other important aspects of technology, arguing for instance that current patent laws make it far too easy for vague software patents to be approved. Such bad patents seemingly approved by people with little understanding of the technology then in turn stifle software development and technological progress.
The increasing use of SaaS (software as a service) also comes in for heavy criticism, with Stallman arguing that this is even worse than proprietary software executed on a user’s own computer, since all activity is taking place on and under the control of someone else’s server.
Stallman’s strongest critics might no doubt dismiss his views as the ramblings of a techno-hippie, but to do so would be grossly unfair. Whether you are a passionate believer in free or proprietary software, Stallman’s views as a technology philosopher deserve to be heard. While one might disagree with him on the size of technology’s wider social impact- that there is an an effect would be hard to argue against.
As technology continues to creep further and further into every corner of our lives, essentially becoming a mainstay of our identity, it would not be too much of a stretch to argue that its characteristics will in turn shape the future society and identity that we ultimately end up with.
A program is free software if the program’s users have the four essential freedoms:
The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
Understanding the above is crucial, for it serves as the foundation of Stallman’s approach to software and society. The latter in particular is what sets Stallman apart from many others, for he believes that the free software ideal is a social movement that must be fought for at every turn.
Reading his thoughts on the subject, one finds an often uncompromising and idealistic attitude that sees the fight for free software as an ongoing battle for human liberty.
As a programmer himself, Stallman shares with us his own early experiences at MIT and how restrictive proprietary software helped to shape his views.
Later interesting essays touch on the importance of free software in schools, why science must push copyright aside, the problems with DRM and why he prefers the term ‘free software’ instead of ‘open source’.
As well as arguing for the many benefits of free software in all of these areas, he suggests that the use of offering discounted proprietary software to schools is a strategy to get users hooked on such software from an early age.
He frequently also touches on the security implications of using proprietary hardware and software. Since such technology takes control out of the hands of the user and uses hidden code, we can never be certain of what it is doing without our knowledge – whether this be tracking or using back-doors for malicious intent. All such users effectively have to place blind faith in the provider and be willing to cede control.
As well as discussing the importance of copyleft licenses, His essays touch on other important aspects of technology, arguing for instance that current patent laws make it far too easy for vague software patents to be approved. Such bad patents seemingly approved by people with little understanding of the technology then in turn stifle software development and technological progress.
The increasing use of SaaS (software as a service) also comes in for heavy criticism, with Stallman arguing that this is even worse than proprietary software executed on a user’s own computer, since all activity is taking place on and under the control of someone else’s server.
Stallman’s strongest critics might no doubt dismiss his views as the ramblings of a techno-hippie, but to do so would be grossly unfair. Whether you are a passionate believer in free or proprietary software, Stallman’s views as a technology philosopher deserve to be heard. While one might disagree with him on the size of technology’s wider social impact- that there is an an effect would be hard to argue against.
As technology continues to creep further and further into every corner of our lives, essentially becoming a mainstay of our identity, it would not be too much of a stretch to argue that its characteristics will in turn shape the future society and identity that we ultimately end up with.
May 10, 2018
Compelling arguments in the context of some kind of post material scarcity world
August 30, 2013
I hear and have read quite a bit about both the open source and free software movements. However, not until hearing from the horse's mouth do I fully understand the difference and scope of the GNU movement the problems of (to differ from author) Intellectual Property rights in the digital age. Besides a failed attempt (imho) at distinguishing between software and more physical property rights, the views of Stallman should be studies and if we lived in an ideal world all his views would work (but we don't). Stallman's radical philosophy is known to many but the elaboration given in these essays will clear up much doubt on the views of the author. The upcoming years will be an interesting study in the validity and viability in the views expressed here.
November 23, 2013
Richard Stallman is considered an extremist by some, but it is hard to agree after reading this collection of his essays. His GNU project is firmly based in idealism, it is true, but it has been a rare example of idealism made real. Perhaps he comes off more abrasive in person than in written form, but from the book one gets the impression that Stallman is perfectly capable of recognizing the contributions of and acknowledging the good in those he disagrees with. It has become clear, particularly in recent years, that he has been right all along about so-called "intellectual property" and most of the rest. Hopefully his ideas will survive despite the appropriation by corporate America we are starting to see.
February 5, 2012
I've never heard any sort of speech given by Richard Stallman first hand, so this book is the closest thing to that that I may ever experience. I like the essays here and agree with them for the most part. Richard Stallman is a bit of an extreme person and at first that drove me away from the idea of reading his essays but he has some very good logic and if you give his messages some real thought then you'll probably agree with me that what this man represents is a very much necessary bipolar oposite to what's offered by people like Bill Gates or Steve Jobs.
January 12, 2014
Got this book at a tech conference from the Free Software Foundation. Great collection of essays by Richard Stallman, covering mostly technological matters but, as always, the discussion of liberty in the world of technology bleeds over into non-tech issues as well. I think it's a must-read for anyone interested in libertarianism, anarchism, and not just those interested in information technology.
August 1, 2015
My views on Richard Stallman vacillate wildly between "I think you're a crazy old man out of touch with reality" and "Man, I wish I was a better person." Whatever you think of the full brunt of his admittedly idealistic positions, the software world would be a much poorer place without him and the ideas and conversations he forced us to have. And I wouldn't trade that tension between conflicting ideas for anything, even a working copy of GNU HURD.
May 16, 2016
Free in Free Software stands for Free as in Free Speech and not Free Beer, that is Free for Freedom and not for Free of Cost. Free Software allows its users to use it in whatever they want, study it, modify it and share the modifications with their friends. As software is becoming more and more ubiquitous the need to upheld the freedom of the software is becoming a necessity to upheld a Free Society.
April 3, 2014
A historical story of a global movement with some great and brilliant ideas rather than a book of sociology or philosophy. Too much wordy and full of personal stuff and attitudes. Stallman is a true revolutionary, but not a philosopher.
February 16, 2016
I love this book and I am in agreement with thoughts of all gentle-PEOPLE who documented the book. FSF is working for a noble cause. May God bless us all to turn these dreams into reality and make world a better, beautiful society!
October 21, 2013
If the topic is not new, the essays can be very boring, but other essays were valuable.
"The Amazon Kindle e-book reader (whose name suggests it's intended to burn people's books)" :) :)
"The Amazon Kindle e-book reader (whose name suggests it's intended to burn people's books)" :) :)
January 25, 2013
Probably one of the most important books I will ever read.Even the intro was profound. So smart with out being pretentious. Stallman's ideas apply to everything.
December 8, 2012
Richard Stallman is a programming superstar.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 34 reviews