Frases de Richard Stallman
Richard Stallman
Fecha de nacimiento: 16. Marzo 1953
Richard Matthew Stallman , con frecuencia abreviado como «rms», es un programador estadounidense y fundador del movimiento por el software libre en el mundo.
Entre sus logros destacados como programador se incluye la realización del editor de texto GNU Emacs, el compilador GCC, y el depurador GDB, bajo la rúbrica del Proyecto GNU. Sin embargo, es principalmente conocido por el establecimiento de un marco de referencia moral, político y legal para el movimiento del software libre, como una alternativa al desarrollo y distribución del software no libre o privativo. Es también inventor del concepto de copyleft , un método para licenciar software de tal forma que su uso y modificación permanezcan siempre libres y queden en la comunidad de usuarios y desarrolladores.
Autores similares
Julian Assange11
programador, periodista, activista y político australiano
Elena Poniatowska64
escritora, activista y periodista mexicana
Noam Chomsky98
lingüista, filósofo y activista estadounidense
Stephen King329
Víctor Jara28
artista y activista político chileno
Ricardo Flores Magón29
anarquista y activista mexicanoFrases Richard Stallman
„Que las empresas tengan especial influencia en la política significa que la democracia está enferma. El propósito de la democracia es asegurarse de que los ricos no tengan una influencia proporcional a su riqueza. Y si tienen más influencia que tú o que yo, eso significa que la democracia está fallando. Las leyes que obtienen de esta forma no tienen autoridad moral, sino la capacidad de hacer daño.“
— Richard Stallman
sin fuentes
„Without absolute certainty, what do we do? We do the best we can. Injustice is happening now; suffering is happening now. We have choices to make now.“
— Richard Stallman
Context: Religious people often say that religion offers absolute certainty about right and wrong; "god tells them" what it is. Even supposing that the aforementioned gods exist, and that the believers really know what the gods think, that still does not provide certainty, because any being no matter how powerful can still be wrong. Whether gods exist or not, there is no way to get absolute certainty about ethics. Without absolute certainty, what do we do? We do the best we can. Injustice is happening now; suffering is happening now. We have choices to make now. To insist on absolute certainty before starting to apply ethics to life decisions is a way of choosing to be amoral.
„In 1971 when I joined the staff of the MIT Artificial Intelligence lab, all of us who helped develop the operating system software, we called ourselves hackers.“
— Richard Stallman
Context: In 1971 when I joined the staff of the MIT Artificial Intelligence lab, all of us who helped develop the operating system software, we called ourselves hackers. We were not breaking any laws, at least not in doing the hacking we were paid to do. We were developing software and we were having fun. Hacking refers to the spirit of fun in which we were developing software. The hacker ethic refers to the feelings of right and wrong, to the ethical ideas this community of people had — that knowledge should be shared with other people who can benefit from it, and that important resources should be utilized rather than wasted. Back in those days computers were quite scarce, and one thing about our computer was it would execute about a third-of-a-million instructions every second, and it would do so whether there was any need to do so or not. If no one used these instructions, they would be wasted. So to have an administrator say, "well you people can use a computer and all the rest of you can't," means that if none of those officially authorized people wanted to use the machine that second, it would go to waste. For many hours every morning it would mostly go to waste. So we decided that was a shame. Anyone should be able to use it who could make use of it, rather than just throwing it away. In general we did not tolerate bureaucratic obstructionism. We felt, "this computer is here, it was bought by the public, it is here to advance human knowledge and do whatever is constructive and useful." So we felt it was better to let anyone at all use it — to learn about programming, or do any other kind of work other than commercial activity.
MEME 2.04, an interview with David S. Bennahum (1996) http://memex.org/meme2-04.html
„I've always lived cheaply. I live like a student, basically. And I like that, because it means that money is not telling me what to do. I can do what I think is important for me to do. It freed me to do what seemed worth doing.“
— Richard Stallman
Context: !-- I was getting 8 to 10 orders [for tapes of Emacs] a month. And, if necessary, I could have lived on just that, because --> I've always lived cheaply. I live like a student, basically. And I like that, because it means that money is not telling me what to do. I can do what I think is important for me to do. It freed me to do what seemed worth doing. So make a real effort to avoid getting sucked into all the expensive lifestyle habits of typical Americans. Because if you do that, then people with the money will dictate what you do with your life. You won't be able to do what's really important to you.<!-- line 422
„As one person put it, "Open source is a development methodology; free software is a social movement."“
— Richard Stallman
Context: While free software by any other name would give you the same freedom, it makes a big difference which name we use: different words convey different ideas.
In 1998, some of the people in the free software community began using the term "open source software" instead of "free software" to describe what they do. The term "open source" quickly became associated with a different approach, a different philosophy, different values, and even a different criterion for which licenses are acceptable. The Free Software movement and the Open Source movement are today separate movements with different views and goals, although we can and do work together on some practical projects.
The fundamental difference between the two movements is in their values, their ways of looking at the world. For the Open Source movement, the issue of whether software should be open source is a practical question, not an ethical one. As one person put it, "Open source is a development methodology; free software is a social movement." For the Open Source movement, non-free software is a suboptimal solution. For the Free Software movement, non-free software is a social problem and free software is the solution.
„I didn't receive the DEC message, but I can't imagine I would have been bothered if I have. I get tons of uninteresting mail, and system announcements about babies born, etc.“
— Richard Stallman
Context: I didn't receive the DEC message, but I can't imagine I would have been bothered if I have. I get tons of uninteresting mail, and system announcements about babies born, etc. At least a demo MIGHT have been interesting. … The amount of harm done by any of the cited "unfair" things the net has been used for is clearly very small. And if they have found any people any jobs, clearly they have done good. If I had a job to offer, I would offer it to my friends first. Is this "evil"? … Would a dating service for people on the net be "frowned upon" by DCA? I hope not. But even if it is, don't let that stop you from notifying me via net mail if you start one.
First reaction to reports of the first commercial "spam" email, sent by DEC salesman, Gary Thuerk (8 May 1978), as quoted in "Reaction to the DEC Spam of 1978" http://www.templetons.com/brad/spamreact.html#msg<!-- also only partially quoted in "Damn Spam", by Michael Specter, in The New Yorker (6 August 2007) http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/08/06/damn-spam -->
