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.
Everything he said was warmly said, and said to motivate. Section two talks about copyright, copyleft, and patents. For one thing, there are many legitimate reasons to circumvent DRM. Even if that were true and I do not think it isit 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.
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. Forall users, they cannot get around the DRM scheme.
By the same token, those that choose to own and keep trackers on their person have already divulged the location of the tracker and thus themselvesand that choice was never Stallman's to make.The book is divided into three sections 4 actually, but the 4th is just a reprint of the licences. Finally, it is, in my opinion, legally kind of cheating to have the same software be covered by copyright and by patents. I agree that it is nice and wonderful and efficient and encourages more progress when software is free. 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. But software freedom is far better for computer users in cases where the two philosophies conflict or diverge. I agree that copyright is getting way out of hand these days. I agree that software is increasingly fundamental to society.
In practice, open source philosophy is disposed of in the face of powerful, reliable proprietary software "How can I get a copy [of that proprietary program]? If someone writes software, it is perfectly reasonable for them to say others have to make it free if they add to it.