ZNet interviews Richard Stallman

ProgressiveCynic writes "ZNet has just published an interview with Richard Stallman. Much of the interview will be review for Slashdot folks, intended to introduce ZNet's audience to the free software movement, but many interesting bits remain including a discussion on the outlawing of free software, patents as applied to literature, and this quote: 'I'm a Liberal, in US terms (not Canadian terms). I'm against fascism.'"

Comments

Pay the Toll

[rodgster]

RMS > You could not run free applications on such a system (sic, trusted computing). If you did figure out how, and told someone, that could be a crime.

In other words. You Must Pay the Microsoft Tax.

Wow, RMS was rather lucid in this interview. I'm impressed.

Re:Pay the Toll

[John Nowak]

He didn't say to avoid ALL closed hardware -- Just nVidia specifically, because it is such a crucial component which can be very difficult to support.

Re:Pay the Toll

[FireFury03]

If Linux is made by hardware vendors to rely on binary drivers, where exactly does that leave its stability advantage?

I think I need to clarify my point: binary drivers are a Bad Thing (it's debatable whether they're better/worse than _no_ drivers, but I'll leave that discussion for now). My point was that if you're boycotting a manufacturer because you disagree with their business practices then why should it just be that one manufacturer - surely you have the same problem with other manufacturers employing the same business practices?

And if you are going to boycott a single manufacturer it might make more sense to do it in an area of the market where there's more choice between closed drivers and open drivers rather than aiming for a market where there aren't many open devices to use _instead_ of the device you're boycotting.

Another problem is manufacturers removing perfectly good well-supported devices from the market (whether they are supported through openness or reverse engineering) and replacing them with closed devices for cost reasons - it seems very difficult to put pressure on the manufacturers to keep making the old devices. A good example of this is Intersil stopping manufacture of the well supported Prism GT 802.11g chipset and replacing it with the Prism Javalin (softmac) chipset which isn't supported at all. Reverse engineering hardware is a lot of work and it's wasted if the hardware you reverse engineered is obsolete by the time you've got a working driver. (It should be noted that the hardware I'm talking about isn't obsolete because it lacked functionality, it's obsolete because the manufacturer invented something marginally cheaper).

Good Article but...

[Gr1mm-R34p3r]

In an otherwise informative article, I learned that Mr Stallman is yet another person doesnt know what the hell fascism is (nor do most people who throw around the term "Bush Regime"). :rolleyes:

I quote RMS

"Fascism is a system of government that sucks up to business and has no respect for human rights. So the Bush regime is an example, but there are lots of others. In fact, it seems we are moving towards more fascism globally."

If you're going to throw the F word around at least learn what it means. Fascism has little to nothing to do with business, instead it is about the state or more specifically the ruler. It is a pragmatic form of government when it comes to business. If anything, it functions under a permanent war economy with the major industries cooperating. In other words, it is a centralized economy that still retains private property and freedom of commerce.

The US and other countries today are not fascist nor resemble anything like a fascist nation. Does big business run the country? Yes. Do politicians suck up to it? Yes. Is this a good thing? NO! But its NOT fascism. To call it such is at the least a bit ignorant.

Does anyone care? Probably not, but I have to try.

PS:

I'll have some ridiculous replies accusing me of being a Bush supporter (hardly).

Re:Good Article but...

[tetromino]

Nah, the US is not fascist.

First, because it is still a democracy (although Diebold is doing its best to undermine that). And second, because there is no systematic merger of business and government -- rather, certain businesses (RIAA, MPAA, oil, defense, etc) are one of the several special interest groups that the government pays too much attention to. Trial lawyers are another such group. So are fundamentalist Christians. So are mothers who want you to "think of the children". So are the gun-loving folks. So are the anti- and pro-abortion activists. So are the farmers. None of them has a monopoly on government attention - yet.

What you see with Halliburton and Enron is good old-fashioned cronyism and corruption. It's nowhere near the type of horror that most countries in Latin America, Southeast Asia, and the Middle East went through sometime in the past 50 years.

Re:Good Article but...

[sstidman]

What's with the constant ad hominem attacks on Slashdot? If you disagree, then fine, please give some supporting facts and debate the issue. We might all be able to learn something from you. But just ridiculing someone ... how is that an "insightful" argument? What has happened to the Slashdot moderation system?

Re:Good Article but...

[s20451]

The power in the word "fascist" is that it is strongly associated with the brutal national socialist regimes in Germany and Italy.

But what you're saying is that most people are fascists if the definition is suitably relaxed. Similarly, you might read a medical textbook and recognize that you are suffering from "symptoms" of various disorders. It is not impossible to meet some of the criteria of being a "fascist" and still support constitutional rights, which are they keys to democratic government.

Re:Good Article but...

[Anonymous Coward]

America in the 21st century is lucky enough to have 20th century Germany as an illustrative example. The current admistration carefully works the PR to avoid comparisons, plus the widespread parroting of inane cliches such as Gowdin's 'law' prevent people from closely examining uncomfortable parallels. Extra-legal camps for political enemies, domestic surveillance without legal process (and incredibly, the 'leader' insisting it as his right!), absolving major corporations of convicted crimes, foreign wars of aggression with little, no or constantly shifting justification, a media which clamours to repeat government-distributed talking points almost verbatim, you're a lot closer than you think. The difference is half a century's experience in effective marketing and PR.

Re:Interesting...

[John Nowak]

Free software has a much better chance of working than Communism (yes, I know, it has never been truly implemented, etc). Unlike a government for a country, not everyone has to be in on it. If you live in a "communist" nation, you fall under communist rule. However, free software and non-free software can mix. People can use one, or the other, or both. Provided that there is a critical mass of people in the free software community, and there is, we should be just fine.

Re:Liberals

[Bazzalisk]

To be honest in the current political climate it would be hard to find someone in Europe who wouldn't be considered liberal in the USA - the current US polirtics make Genghis Khan's wealth redistribution policies look positively progressive - and Mussolini would be considered practicaly a commie!

Re:RMS

[Fred_A]

Either you don't work in the software industry or you work for Microsoft (or you're still in school) but you apparently don't have the slightest idea how the real world works.

When you get a work working on software, it statistically *never* is writing one of those things that ends up in a box in your local shop.
Writing software is fiddling with an application that's internal to the company you are currently working for or which ends up embedded in the entrails of some sort of device (or of a web site).

This you can absolutely do with free software and you can often liberate tools that you created while working on your main product.

As for working freelance, it's something else entirely. But most such customizing jobs are subcontracted to large service firms, not individuals.
Or you can specialize in working with small companies in which case you'll have the same problem every budding entrepreneur has, whether he sells software services or diapers: finding customers.

Welcome to the real world (you should have taken the other pill).

I love RMS.

[solios]

Seriously, man. ESPECIALLY in this day and age, it takes BALLS to be absolutely a hundred percent no holds barred no bullshit 100% DEDICATED to the exact letter of What You Belive Is True. It might be "socially awkward" or "a career impairment" but this is, I firmly believe, the one possible instance in which a Dungeons & Dragons Paladin grade Lawful-lawful Good-good Dedication To Cause is actually - in some capacity - having a positive impact on the lives of many.

That his intensity of focus could also make him an object of ridicule is a natural side effect of said dedication. i doubt I'd be able to talk to the guy about software or legal issues for more than a handful of syllables before the punching instinct kicked in, but where would modern software be if it weren't for GNU and the GPL?

Re:Ivory towers and actually working

[Anonymous Coward]

You obviously have no clue about what your talking about.

Millions of people depend and use GNU software everyday. Why do you think that RMS tries to tell you to say: "GNU/Linux" and not just "Linux".

This is because not only do you use GNU for their compiler the most common userland tools and programs in Linux are almost wholey GNU.

GNU Bash, GNU tar, Gnome, CVS, GTK, Gimp, Glibc There are literally hundreds of GNU programs used around Linux distros.

Hell if you don't like Gnome GNU has a entire other desktop system to choose from.. Window Maker + GNUStep.

Try to remove all GNU software from your Linux system and see how far you get.
http://directory.fsf.org/GNU/

People go: Oh, why don't you just call it Apache/GNU/Linux since you have lots of apache-sponsored applications?

Well the thing is is that without Apache you'd still have a working OS. Apache isn't the only Free web server around...
Without GNU there would be no workable Linux distro.

If you use Linux for a living you depend on GNU and GNU Software to do it.

Even if you don't use Linux and use something like Solaris.. Solaris userland is crap. Best way to improve Solaris for day to day use as a workstation and server is to install a bunch of GNU software on it. And it's similar situation for the BSD's although it's not nearly as bad.

Hell even Apple uses GCC to build OS X.

To say GNU software as unsucccessfull.. your completely wrong.

In fact the GNU project is one of the most successfull software projects ever created. It's wildly successfull.

The goal was to create a Free software OS for using Free software for Freedom-liking individuals.

Just taking GCC.. It's one of the most ubiquious development tools ever created. Probably the most popular software compiling suite ever created. You can build C programs, fortran programs, Java programs, C++ programs, ada programs. It works on VAX, on x86 variants, on POWER/PPC varients, and pretty much every other hardware platform created in modern times.

Apple, IBM, Redhat, and many other companies put development time and money into it.

Think about it. They give it away for no-cost and for Free.

If that is not successfull then tell me what is?

So what if nobody uses the kernel, almost every other peice of software that was ever created or ever joined that project is used buy buches of people.

GNU/Linux is the 2nd most common OS anywere. It's used in everything from super computers to wrist watches to toasters.

Go back in time on Google groups and you can find usenet postings from when GNU was just starting and you'll find people saying stuff like: "that RMS is entertaining and has lovely ideas about software, but nobody is ever going to make a compiler like $LONG_FORGOTTEN_COMPILER and give it away for free!"
or
"Well GNU is funny stuff, but no way it will ever come close to $DEAD_OR_DYING_UNIX_VERSION in terms of capabilities, much less convince developers to work for free, what a wacko!"

Richard Stallman reminds me...

[OneSmartFellow]

of many of the 'intellectuals' which come out of MIT. Full of great ideas, and convction for them, but lacking some fundamental understanding of the 'real world'.

I know I'll be slammed for that, but it's hard to say it any more clearly

Re:Another podcast interview on prisonplanet too

[OverflowingBitBucket]

Massively offtopic, but this issue really ticks me off.

Reality is that in most cases, a vote for an independent candidate is a wasted vote.

Oh cut it out. This line of thought is why the US is stuck electing Republicrats every election. The only wasted vote is one that isn't cast.

Sure, vote for someone outside of the major two parties and you won't "win" in the present loaded system. But you do throw your weight behind the numbers who have indicated that they aren't happy with Red and Blue but want someone else in. More importantly, you've thrown your weight behind a particular party or ideology, and as the numbers grow, more people can shake the "I must vote for one of the two main parties" mentality and vote for another viable party. Sure, it won't happen in one election, but if people vote for who they want rather than following the catchy "you're throwing your vote away" mentality, then the country as a whole will be much better off and it'll finally elect a capable representative leader.

The whole logic of saying that because you won't "win" in one election you should vote for the best of the worst two is not only counterintuitive but is entrenching the present political stranglehold. All I can say is stop it. Stop repeating the "third party is a wasted vote" lie because gullible people keep believing it, and you keep getting rubbish government as a result. Don't you think you deserve better than the best of the worst two? Aren't you all sick of electing one of two fratboys offered up each election?

Whoa there - Wikipedia: Consider the source

[TrappedByMyself]

The Wikipedia entry for Facism is currently flagged "The neutrality of this article is disputed."
If you read through the discussion you'll see claims that facism is incorrectly being tied with right wing politics

And for that American Heritage Dictionary definition;
A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism

The dictionary.com refrence which also lists the American Heritage Dictionary as its source has something quite different
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

I want a neutral argument here, but that second definition doesn't have the "liberal spin" to it. In other words, you don't see extreme right or merging of state and business leadership, but instead the traditional definition of facism, which has a dictator with total control over the government and the economy.

Interpret this as you will, but I see here a case where information does not equal truth. There are so many facts to choose from, that people pick the ones that suit them best. If you hate Bush, you pick the first definition, and count the ways in which Bush is worse than Hitler. If you support Bush, you pick the second one and accuse the smelly hippies of spreading misinformation.

Re:Another podcast interview on prisonplanet too

[stinerman]

You've hit on something very important.

I have no other choice

The major party candidates know you think that way. John Kerry and Al Gore both ran campaigns betting that you'd hold your nose and vote for them rather than vote for someone you actually agreed with and believed could make a difference.

I particularly enjoyed many anti-war activists who signed a petition saying that they were voting for Kerry, but expected him to change his position on the war after they had helped elect him, or risk losing their support in the 2008 election. Kerry didn't care that people were holding their nose for him because a vote is a vote, no matter why it was cast.

Scenario:

Let us assume node_3 is a traditional liberal, who often sides with the Democrats. I am a candidate for the Democratic party, who knows that he(she?) and many others will vote for me no matter what my positions are. No amount of lobbying by node_3 and others like him(her) will ever change my mind because I already have their vote. I will instead devote my energies to change my platform to suit those who may not vote for me (likely making me more conservative). That is, by saying outright that you will vote for me, because voting for an independent is "wasting my vote", you have lost your only hold on my issue positions.

This scenario has been the core strategy of the DLC, a centrist Democratic party group, since the late 80s. This can be modeled as a game of chicken with you declaring before the game even starts that you will swerve.

My point is that we're going to have to crash a few times before the Democrats get their shit together. Sooner or later, they'll start swerving.