RMS Calls to Liberate Cyberspace

Henri Poole writes "In an interview with Groklaw's Sean Daly at GPLv3 Conference in Barcelona, RMS talks with passion about the dangers of DRM. From the article: 'the point is, we shouldn't be passive victims! We should decide that it will not happen! And the way we decide that is by activism. We have to do everything possible to make sure that those products are rejected, that they fail, that they give bad reputations to whoever makes them.' He closed the interview with a far reaching goal for the Free Software Movement: 'the goal is to liberate everyone in cyberspace.'"

Comments

The people who criticise Richard Stallman...

[Anonymous Coward]

I always enjoy it when Richard Stallman gives interviews. He was probably the first person--many, many years ago!--to fundamentally understand that we have a CHOICE of whether we want to preserve freedoms to do whatever we want with our software, or whether we're going to let other parties take those freedoms away from us.

Also, he had the guts to stand up for his freedoms and everyone else's, to be able to do what they want with their software. He's done more than just about any other single person to try and protect those freedoms for regular folks like you and me.

Can you imagine what the software landscape would look like today without the GPL, without the FSF and without all the free software that has been licensed under the GPL (both by the FSF and by many other open-source contributors)? Even if many of us continue to use non-free systems such as Windows XP, it is nice to know we have a choice. And we WOULDN'T have that choice anymore if Richard and many others had not stood up when they did.

Lots of people criticise Richard Stallman, but in my view nearly all of those people are either (1) immature kids who wouldn't pass a real civics class if they were ever put in one, (2) people who don't understand the real issues and how fundamental they are, or (3) shills or trolls or other people with an anti-freedom agenda.

There are a small number of people who understand the issues but aren't particularly concerned about them; extreme pragmatists like Linus probably fall into this category. Still, I don't often hear Linus or others from this category criticising Stallman.

The people who criticise Richard Stallman are those who are afraid of his message.

Re:The people who criticise Richard Stallman...

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

In the same way that I am sympathetic to the animal rights movement yet think PETA is counterproductive, I am sympathetic to the Open Source movement yet think Stallman is, generally, overshrill for his/our own good. The idea that you have to match extremity with extremity in politics finds no home with me.

I don't think you know what extreme is.

Communism as a solution to the problems of proprietary software would be extreme, but that isn't even close to what Stallman promotes.

Stallman's position is to the proprietary software industry as the expectation of being able to open the hood of your car is to the automobile industry. No reasonable person would argue that the hoods of all cars should be welded shut and only openable by the manufacturer, so why is it extreme for Stallman to make the same argument about software?

Re:The people who criticise Richard Stallman...

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Wow. Pre-emptively demonizing those who might dare disagree with the great RMS. I'm sure all those people won't post now!

I think you've illustrated the RMS cult of personality far better than you realize. Keep that mind closed! It's much safer that way!

You are way over-stretching your example. Anyone who has been on slashdot very long has heard all the complaints about RMS, by now its just a litany of repitition - nobody has come up with anything new to complain about RMS for long, long time.

So the guy posts first and says, "yeah, yeah, yeah, we've heard it all before and most of the arguments against RMS break down as either A, B or C." That doesn't mean he's close minded, it means he's tired of hearing the same well refuted drivel over and over again.

Anyone who wants to criticize RMS should take that as a declaration that they need to do better than they have in the past, that same tired old specious arguments aren't worth the effort to type them in.

By the way, your "cult of personality" bit - that's one of the referenced specious arguments that nobody cares about.

Re:The people who criticise Richard Stallman...

[AuMatar]

People don't use the software because the GPL is so rigid. If we used Perl's Artistic License instead of the GPL we'd finally have progress. Who cares if others change your software? It's at least being used and improving the world.

That quote shows you completely do not understand the GPL. People can charge for my GPLed software if they wish. Nothing in the license stops them. What they can't do is take it and make software from it without releasing their own code. In other words, it keeps the code open. Taking the code and making a proprietary branch doesn't improve the world. IT just continues the cycle of proprietary shit used to fuck over consumers. The GPL does improve the world- it forces offshoots to be GPLed as well, so people can use the code to improve their lives and the lives of others.

Re:The people who criticise Richard Stallman...

[rolfwind]

The extremists founded the US government. Read up on Samuel Adams as the best example, he was a propagandist that, among other things, helped organize the Boston Tea Party and generally rally people around the idea of revolution through his 1-sided newspaper. He was as extreme as you can get.

Like it or not, but moderates stir no one to action exactly because they have no defining ideological principles. It is simply a relative marker of the "middle ground." Extremist serve their purpose by marking the extreme (the edge).

A moderate today is different from a moderate yesterday but sets of principles are more firm. If there were no Richard Stallman setting up his extreme, the current leftist (or what have you) extreme would be moved closer to your middle, and you'd be the extremist, unless of course, if you don't stand for anything, then your stand would be significantly pushed to closer to the status quo and away from what Stallman stands for.

In fact, being a moderate is much of an deceit on people to appear "reasonable" when it really is just a way not to ruffle anybodies feathers by having a stance. Their opinions change with the tide.

If moderates were the flag bearers (which by definition they are the exact opposite of), would there be slavery in our country still? What about woman's suffrage? Or the civil rights movement?

None of these were started by moderates nor advocated by moderates until the "extremists" stood up and then moved the "middle position" away from the status quo.

My point is, people like RMS are exactly what's needed because the whiny people in the middle don't want to obstruct the flow and, in the absense of two extremes but having only one to follow, would tend to sway toward that group.

Re:The people who criticise Richard Stallman...

[illuminatedwax]

You can change the software all you like and keep it as secret as you like as long as you don't try and distribute your program without source code under the GPL. You do *not* have to contribute to the original product, and you do not have to get any permission from the project to release modified code (as long as it is in turn GPL'd). Many businesses use GPL software all the time, tweaking it so it works for their own in-house purposes, and it never sees the light of day. This is acceptable use, and is in fact encouraged because it demonstrates the spectacular freedom of FOSS. All the GPL is trying to accomplish is to make sure that people don't change software, and then try and distribute it without freedoms attached.

I can't believe people still are confused about this aspect of the GPL.

Re:The people who criticise Richard Stallman...

[Anonymous Coward]

Stallman's position is to the proprietary software industry as the expectation of being able to open the hood of your car is to the automobile industry.

No, no, no. Source code is step-by-step instructions for building a product, it's not (usually) the product itself. (The exception would be for stuff like teaching/educational programs, such as Minix, where the source code is part of the product.) To get the "source" for a car, you need all the blueprints, design schematics, assembly line instructions, etc. to build one yourself from very small parts.

Now you may, from looking at the finished product, be able to deduce some or even most of how the car was made. But that's just reverse-engineering, which you can do with software too (well, less and less these days). All those books you see at your local auto parts store, like the Haynes manuals? They're the result of reverse-engineering the car. Manufacturers have their own manuals which they sell (for big money), but they are more like MS's MCSE books than source code.

Sorry, but the analogy you made is kind of a pet peeve of mine. I think so many people make the same error because cars are so simple (compared to major computer programs) that a regular Joe can look at one and figure most of it out. It's frustrating that we can't do the same with software, but even people who do have the source code can't keep it all straight in their heads. It's why we have APIs.

Re:The people who criticise Richard Stallman...

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

There's a difference though in the way cars and software are both made. However, I feel the original analogy is correct. If I want to know how mozilla works, I can look at the source and try to figure it out. Since I'm a coder, I have an idea of what does what and it makes sense to me. The same way a mechanic can look inside a car's hood and find out how a car works.

Re:The people who criticise Richard Stallman...

[janzen]

George Bernard Shaw made this same point very eloquently: "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man."

Re:The people who criticise Richard Stallman...

[javilon]

"No reasonable person would argue that the hoods of all cars should be welded shut and only openable by the manufacturer"

Right now, you are allowed to sell a car where the hood is welded shut, but police wouldn't stop people from opening it.
On the other hand, with DRM if you manage to open it up, the RIAA will call the police, and at the expense of taxpayers, police will come and take you to jail.
I don't have anything against DRM except the police enforcement. If they can come up with a technological measure that stops me from making a copy of digital information, so be it. The less of my worries will be music or movies. But if they don't, I don't know why the goverment has to protect them and not me.

FSF's Defective By Design

[Henri Poole]

The FSF has recently launched the Defective by Design campaign. This campaign is an initiative to provide activism opportunities for free software activists and is 'new territory' for the FSF. In the last 30 days, DefectiveByDesign has received press in Reuters, Financial Times, BusinessWeek, US News and World Report, BBC and over 40 publications in the tech space. The project was launched in response to the most recent FSF members meeting earlier this year, where many FSF members discussed ideas about bringing the fight for free software into the mainstream.

Interesting read.

[Mikachu]

I really can't say it gave all that much new information, but he definitely made some points. DRM, in any shape or form, is essentially incompatible with the idea of Free Software. When your goal is to restrict the public, there's really no room for compromise. Richard Stallman = smart man.

DRM education

[remembertomorrow]

I think the biggest problem is educating the public about what DRM is.

In my experiences, after explaining what DRM is to people that I know, they think it is the dumbest thing that they have ever heard.

I am sure the public would reject it, but the problem remains then: how do we educate the public? :/

Education?

[MostAwesomeDude]

Before liberation, shouldn't we educate the public first? Most people today know nothing about DRM, FSF, or that MP3 is a patented format. We all remember the Sony rootkit scandal, but the average consumer does not. The average consumer uses proprietary Windows formats and never considers the dangerous problems that closed systems present to free information. As long as the ignorant masses stay complacent and docile, and as long as consumers obsesquiently gobble up DRM-laced products, there is no chance that free software will win.

DRM isn't dangerous.

[RexRhino]

DRM isn't dangerous... DRM is simply encryption, and encryption isn't bad. I don't think anyone here wants encryption restricted in any way. Everyone has the right to encrypt any data in any way they want, period!

What IS dangerous is the government requiring DRM or giving it special legal protection. It is dangerous if the government mandates DRM, and makes it illegal for me to circumvent DRM. If I can crack the DRM on media, and convert it to an unprotected format for myself, without any fear of legal consequences, then my rights are not being restricted in any way.

What is also dangerous is people thinking that the government should act against DRM. Seriously, that is just as bad as DRM. It is going to come back to bite people in the ass when those anti-DRM laws start restricting how you are allowed to encrypt your own data. If I create data, I want to be able to encrypt it in any way I choose... just because you find it annoying that it takes 10 seconds to run your itunes music through a utility to convert it to mp3, doesn't mean you have the right to restrict me from encrypting my data however I want.

Basicly, keep all the legal restrictions out of it, and let people do whatever the hell they want want... that is the only truly safe thing to do.

Re:A very telling exclusion there...

[CRCulver]

Uh, maybe you haven't noticed that a lot of GNU activists outside of the United States are interested in the concept of Free Software because they think it might liberate them from the technological domination of a handful of firms in the U.S.. For example, Miguel de Icaza founded the GNOME project because of concern for the disadvantaged in his native country of Mexico. It's no secret that most of the world's most powerful propietary forces are based in the U.S., while GNU software is a cooperative endeavour that is international in scope. And it's not just the elite who take part; many GNU hackers in the former Soviet Union are using ancient hardware and have poor Internet connections. At least with Free Software, everyone is allowed to contribute, whereas with proprietary software it's hard for the rich and simply impossible for the poor.

He has the right attitude.

[TheDarkener]

I live in the United States. I spent yesterday looking at other countries and what qualities of government they have, because I am just plain sick of it here. Every week, I read at least one story about our rights and how they are being taken away through the back door. It was difficult to find a country where there weren't any drawbacks - all forms of government seem fundamentally flawed in (at least) one way or another. We don't NEED it on the Internet.

This world-wide network has gained a momentum, and there are people in power that are AFRAID of that momentum. With no REAL commercial core, with free speech and architecture giving itself power and stance... These people feel threatened that they will be disregarded. So they start fighting it in their world.

MPAA/RIAA lawsuits. DRM. Internet taxation. F*CK THAT.

How about open standards. Open SOURCE CODE. Open practice and ethics. These are all the backbone of the Internet, such as the Tier 1 Internet providers, Internet exchanges and other entities that share information freely. We *KNOW* how to govern ourselves. It's actually very inspiring, isn't it? No real central authority (except for standards and protocols, like the IEEE and DNS root servers)... These people who don't see how it works right now intend to change it so THEY are the ones calling the shots.

No thanks, I think we can do it ourselves.

He's right. We need to fight. Keep it in the hands of everyone, not a just a few corruptable, power hungry mother f*ckers who want to either make money from it or pat themselves on the back knowing that they are in control.

Correction

[fido_dogstoyevsky]

Was RMS wearing a Superman outfit when he made his call to liberate cyberspace.

Actually, Superman wears a Stallman outfit.

I'll address the troll

[Infonaut]

Since none of his ideas even remotely make any real world sense, why is he even publicized?

RMS is publicized because he initiated the Free Software movement. The GNU software license, which he and Eben Moglen created, has been used in some software projects you may have heard of: the Linux kernel, CVS, GNU Emacs, MySQL, and literally thousands of others.

More open source projects are developed under the GPL than under any other license, and companies like Red Hat, IBM, and others have built business units or entire buinesses around GNU-licensed software. When is the last time you saw IBM act out of naive idealism?

A lot of people in the open source world don't agree with everything RMS says, but he's incredibly smart, and people respect his ideas enough to pay attention to what he says. Get out from under the bridge and grapple with his ideas, instead of trolling.

"Don't buy it" is not enough

[Subacultcha]

I was thinking don't buy it

In general, I'm ambivilant to this topic. I tend to think there's extremists at both sides. I like my Tivo, and my mp3s, but I also feel people gotta be paid for their work.

However, when I see this response, I think--Are you kidding? The only way people against DRM are going to change anything is by making a stink about it. Saying "Don't buy it" is about as productive as vegitarians boycotting McDonald's because they serve meat. If you're not the target market, your opinion doesn't matter.

If only the anti-DRM crowd stopped buying the products, it would be a statistical glitch on balance sheet. It's not going to make an impression when most consumers are unaware of the DRM issue.

The Anti-DRM campaign has to make itself heard, while at the same time not coming off as shrill and fringe like PETA does.