Slashdot Mirror
Stallman Convinces Cuba to Switch to Open Source
prostoalex writes "It's a big victory for Richard Stallman in North America, as Cuba decided to adopt open source software on the national level. Both Cuba and Venezuela are currently working on switching the entire government infrastructure to GNU/Linux operating system and applications, the Associated Press reports from Havana: 'Both governments say they are trying to wean state agencies from Microsoft's proprietary Windows to the open-source Linux operating system, which is developed by a global community of programmers who freely share their code.' The AP article doesn't mention the distro used for government workers, but says that the students are working on a Gentoo-based distro."
I wonder how RMS is going to spin this victory to his States-side detractors?
not only the existing ones- but all the people who don't know anything about open source. i think this could be a good thing for linux globally, but for those of us in the u.s. this is going to be the source of a mountain of fud.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
Is there any chance that this sort of announcement will actually scare (I'm using the term loosely) some people away from OSS? Whatever the realities, things associated with Cuba and Venezuala are obviously not popular in certain circles in the US at least.
Or is it just one more bullet added to the ammunition of defenders of proprietary software? There's symbolism in this, but it isn't unmixedly positive: The two American nations listed are already bugaboos in the US culture wars. Won't this just be used to convince consumers in the US not to adopt Linux? "See, it's really just a plot by those big scary Reds..."
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
What is with this guy? First convinces the communist state government of Kerala to switch to Open Source. Then another Indian state that formed a coalition government with the communists. Now cuba. I have nothing against communists using Open Source. But I dont think it benefits the image of open source to be associated with communists so much. Others will spin and try to claim guilt by association.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Stallman speaks about Free Software, the writer of the article has obviously no clue regarding the distinction between Open Source and Free Software.
Once again Stallman proves that brilliance as a programmer does not necessarily translate into brilliance, or even competence, in other fields. I'll bet that the MS PR team is practically salivating over this little tidbit. Thanks Richard, you've just made it harder to move people into OSS in most of the industrialized countries of the world and in exchange you were able to "win over" a nation that already has a small economy, limited technical personnel, and little encouragement for technical innovation at the state level. As an added bonus you grabbed the good will of another nation that is busily shrinking its economy and following the path of the first.
People wonder why the OSS movement struggles to attract more support....
Hey, maybe this is just the irrelevant concern of somebody who works in PR and marketing. But if you're trying to be the ambassador of a broad-based movement, you generally avoid making public appearances with anyone who's a polarizing figure on either side politically. (i.e., if you're with a charity that wants people of all parties to donate, you don't make public appearances with either Dick Cheney or Michael Moore.)
RMS is Free(TM) of course to make public appearances wherever he wishes in support of Free(TM) software etc. I'm just saying that the image of Stallman getting snuggly with Raul Castro and Hugo Chavez - other than being kind of physically gross - is not likely to assuage any US government or business fears about the ideals or politics behind the F/OSS movements. Free software seemed to be gaining some wide acceptance ... but RMS has just given the Bill O'Reillys of the world a powerful tool to shill Microsoft et. al. with once more. Again, it's his right to go ... but I think it's an exceedingly poor idea from a PR perspective. Then again, if RMS cared about PR, he wouldn't be RMS...
"95% of all Slashdot
Well, this should totally kill their economy.
Unlike, say, nearly fifty years of US trade embargos?
I'm more surprised that Microsoft was allowed to sell Cuba copies of Windows in the first place.
MicroSoft sells copies of Windows to OEMS, see, maybe in Hong Kong, and it's the OEMs who sell them to Cuba. Stallman probably got Castro to switch to Linux by pointing out the new "feature" in Vista that lets M$ revoke driver priveleges at their pleasure. Imagine if GM had a lever in Detroit that could make all those mint-condition classic '57 Chevys in Cuba stop working.
They will probably spin it as "Hey Cuba uses Linux and Free Software. Do you want to be a Communist too?" Reminds me of the picture that says something along the lines of "When you pirate music you help communism." Or something like that.
hello
Unless I am mistaken, the United States has one of the most restrictive trade embargoes in place with regards to Cuba. It makes one wonder just how all of this software and the PC's it runs on actually made it into to Cuba. And before anyone jumps all over this and says it's other countries that sell to Cuba, you may want actually check the link above. Microsoft, Intel and a few others can easily be held accountable for the actions of wholly and/or partially owned subsidiaries.
If VISTA is the answer, you didn't understand the question
Yes, I'm sure the loss of the Cuban goverment will badly damage Microsoft's bottom line.
There are already a few comments about Cuba, communism and "Open Source" software. How this will discourage people from using Free Software, or how this will be a PR coup for Microsoft or whatever else.
I just have to say that anyone who thinks that Free Software is communistic because Cuba (and Venezuela) are using it are stupid. Firstly, Cuba is not communist. The USSR never claimed to be communist. Comments about Cuba being communist show the ignorance of the person saying them.
Secondly, if you refuse to use a superior (technologically, or because it's cheaper or whatever) option because "communists" are using it. Then you are stupid. Full stop.
Free Software is not about communism, if you read the FSF definition, you will notice that the software must not be restricted for *any* usage. That includes totalitarian regimes, or real communists living in a hippy commune somewhere. Free Software is about Freedom. And that means that Cuba is free to use it.
For a definition of "communism" or to find out more about "communism", see my "homepage".
I wank in the shower.
In fact, MS over the last 2 decades sold it into East Germany ...
Just in case it slipped your awareness, it is now nearly 2 decades that East Germany as a country vanishes from the world and became a part of what is now called Germany.
almost dictatorial
Is that like being sort of pregnant? The guy just talked his pets in the legislature to allow him to rule by fiat. He's busy nationalizing industries that other people invested in and paid for. He controls the media, beats up and jails his political opponents, and is an all around jackass. It's bad enough that people like Joe Kennedy like to portray him as some sort of saint, but using him (and Castro) as some sort of victorious case study for Stallman's crusading is not, I think, all that helpful. Unless you like the way Chavez is going. Because in his country, companies like Red Hat would shortly wind up being The Ministry Of Software, and the "evil capitalists" that took the risks to found it, paid the people who got it up and running, and made it a viable enterprise would simply be shoved out the door. It's happening right now in that country, and it's going to get worse.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Stallman shouldn't even be dealing with these thugs. There are much better places to push for free software. Forget computers, Cuba's a place where you can be thrown in jail for promoting reading.
"Our goal is not revolution, or even the civil toppling of any political forces. All we seek is for the people to be allowed to choose what they want to read, and to be allowed to draw their own conclusions from that reading"
You pitch a product as being in-line with the ideological tenets of two dictatorships and you think you have a victory? This has probably set back the perception of linux in the enterprise just a bit. He'll probably play it down as much as possible.
People who think they know everything really piss off those of us that actually do.
I wonder how RMS is going to spin this victory to his States-side detractors?
Look no further than the fine AP article for an explanation:
So, thank you Bill Gates for inspiring Cuba and many other countries. The disturbing part of this story is that citizens of the free world willingly give Bill Gates the authority that Fidel Castro will impose by force, and that's the real inspiration provided. I don't have any illusions that Fidel Castro will allow real software freedom anymore than he allows a free press, free association, free worship, so on and so forth. Fidel Castro and his party will be the owners of whatever Linux distribution he makes, just as Bill Gates is the owner of Windoze.
Whatever their motives, software freedom will be better for them. The government will own it's systems but their people using free software may also get a taste for real freedom and have better tools to persue it. Unless they use further M$ tricks like DRM, Cuban computers will work better with really free sotware.
So, how's a dose of reality for a spin? When you use non free software, someone else owns your computer. The non free way of "be so grateful for what my software does for you that you do as I say." When you look behind the rhetoric and lables, what you find is minds that think alike. You would never move to Cuba or China because they would strip you of many of your freedoms. Why willingly surrender your software freedom, with all of the dire implications for other freedom of speech, press, and what those freedoms safeguard?
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
I'm pretty sure it's safe to say that 99.99% of Cuban software is pirated anyway. This switch is more of a big "fuck you" to capitalism and the US than it is about saving money.
The digital arena is probably the only place where it works, too. (Because communism has certainly been an utter failure wherever it's been imposed - don't think so? Then why the hell did Fidel Castro have to get medical treatment from outside Cuba?)
Why would a form of communism work in the digital world but fail utterly everywhere else?
Because in the digital OSS world, you can "take" anything (modify it, change it, copy it, use it) without having to appropriate the original. Source code can be "collectivized" without taking it from the authors. Farms can't be collectivized without taking them from the farmers.
Gee, communism only works where it doesn't involve forced resource redistribution, or society (actually the *government*) appropriating private property.
Imagine that.
The main problem with it is that it's a lovely idea, but completely contrary to human nature. Man is greedy and competitive and mistrustful of his neighbours. Sharing and co-operating and acting in the common interest just aren't practicable for us. On an intellectual level we can all easily accept that it's the most sensible course of action, but when it comes down to it, we all want wealth and power and we're prepared to screw our fellow man to get them, and in the end there's nothing anybody can do about that.
It's a misnomer to associate the GPL with proletariat or Marxist ideology. That's not at all what it's about.
When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price.
A lot of capitalists are making a lot of money off Linux. I work for an Internet company that runs on a +2000 Linux cluster. We were recently sold for $4 billion. Linux is not about socialism, it's *not* anti-capitalist anymore than Google or IBM is.
The GPL has nothing to do with social equality. It's purpose is to ensure that great software will continue to evolve. The main restriction it places on a programmer is that he must ensure his code stays open for others to improve upon. He can sell and profit from writing code, and be as much a capitalist as he wants. The GPL doesn't prevent that in the least.
Again, very funny. Because the governments of Cuba & Venezuela are both ALL ABOUT freedom of information for their citizens. Oh, except Venezuela is also cracking down on the freedom of the press, firing judges who dare to challenge its authority, and let's not forget prison conditions... but other than that? Yays Open Sources!!!!
Not sure I entirely understand how Stallman isn't getting slagged for this, after Google got so roundly derided about its decisions to filter results in the China market... after all, Google is a company, interested in profits. Stallman professes to be all about idealism, and freedom, doesn't he?
You can do with your computer what we allow you to, Comrade. We're watching your every move with WGA.
Your comrade,
Bill Gates
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
"A lot of capitalists are making a lot of money off Linux. I work for an Internet company that runs on a +2000 Linux cluster. We were recently sold for $4 billion. Linux is not about socialism, it's *not* anti-capitalist anymore than Google or IBM is"
) :
Do you even know the meaning of socialism? Here it is (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism
"a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole."
This would fit the definition of linux and the GNU, except for the fact that the Free Software foundation is at the top (many people give all of their IP rights to the GNU..as described in the license), so, this fits more in this definition:
"a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state"
Which is communism.
I guess you can decide which one applies to linux, but I feel it is somewhere in-between.
If I buy 2000 machines and put linux on them, will someone buy them for $4 billion? I didn't think so. The purchase for 4 billion had nothing to do with linux. It was more about your customers, IP, and work that was put into the company.
"The GPL has nothing to do with social equality. It's purpose is to ensure that great software will continue to evolve. The main restriction it places on a programmer is that he must ensure his code stays open for others to improve upon. He can sell and profit from writing code, and be as much a capitalist as he wants. The GPL doesn't prevent that in the least."
It's not about social equality, it's about software equality. A business does not want to put thousands of hours into R&D (which costs lots of money), sell a piece of software, and then allow anyone to sell it or give it away for free (without having to put any R&D into it). From this aspect, it does not make sense as a business model. It does, however, if the business selling it is not the original developer or they are using it to somehow save money in licensing fees.
When anyone can do something (or in our case, download it), the value of it starts approaching 0.
Because communism is not about government or restrictions? Communism is about classless stateless society where resources are held in common. It is about empowerment. It is about freedom. Personally I am an anarchist, communism to me is a type of anarchism. I would be happy with it, so long as I had the choice. And under true communism, I would.
That said, I don't think that Free Software is about communism or is communistic. But it is still more so then Microsoft software.
I wank in the shower.
Wow. Stallman and Cuba. I can't think of a more perfect match.
Ed R.Zahurak
You know, oblivion keeps looking better every day.
What planet do you live on? Cuba's economy tanked in the late 80s (do to lack of freebies from the former Soviet Union) and it's GDP shrank every year until about 2000, at which time it began to grow again, based entirely on freebies from their socialist buddies in Venezuela. Living off of foreign aid (read charity) is hardly what anyone would call a healthy economy.
Well, it's been over an hour with no answer, so I'll bite too.
GNU-licensed software is analogous to communism in the same way that public streets, utilities, libraries, and schools are. To avoid effectively being a communist, you should (a) refuse to accept any benefit of civilization unless you're paying full monopoly prices for them, and (b) refuse to contribute anything to society or the public good for which you're not fully and directly compensated. There must be no motivation other than greed.
If you create something of potential value to others, it is wrong to allow them to benefit from it without compensation. If you can't sell it, perhaps because market channels have been monopolized or are inaccessible or inequitable, then the only proper course of action is to destroy it. Wipe your disks and forget about it. If you allow your neighbor to use it, you may be taking money out of the pockets of deserving corporations and their shareholders.
Only then can we stamp out communism and keep the rights to software out of the undeserving hands of those who create it.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
Socialism does not exist in Africa. You're confusing Socialism and Fascism, of which there is plenty, in many forms, in many nations in Africa. Fascism does not have a social ideology other than centralized, dictatorial control over people. It can take hold in nations governed by socialism and capitalism alike. However, to be fair, the so-called Socialism which has been practiced in the world, has an easier path for Fascism to follow, as the centralized control mechanism is already in place.
Capitalism IN Africa is not what is killing its people, but rather the disposition at which capitalism places African nations with little in the form of natural resources to exploit and export.
We, as a wealthy nation, don't bother ourselves with an African nation unless it produces something we want. In fact, we have no problem buying from them, as long as it's cheap and profitable for us (e.g. the monstrous diamond industry). Conversely, if it has nothing to offer us, we couldn't care less even if their illegal government is committing genocide against its own people (e.g. Darfur).
No, that doesn't bother us. What does bother us however, is a crime we didn't care about when happened 30 years ago because at the time ignoring it suited our business interests, but now we do because the dictator who did it wasn't co-operating any more, and was harming our business relationships in the region. I speak of course of Iraq's Saddam Hussein gassing the Kurds 30 years ago. We not only "forgave" him, we propped him up, because he was co-operative and good for our business interests. When he changed his mind, we killed him and took over his country. But I digress...
Now, to bring this tangent back to the original discussion, I think what Stallman is doing is admirable.
He's bringing free software into nations where the average annual income is less than the average monthly income for a minimum wage earner in the United States, sometimes even far less. Does that mean those people should simply be left behind on the technological ladder? If you're a giant corporation, your answer would be yes, because it would keep you at the top. If you're a giant corporation like Microsoft, they're an opportunity. A "gift" of say, 3000 Microsoft Office licenses, looks good on paper, can even be tax deductable, and yet at the same time, in order for the recipient to actually use them, they have to shell out for those Windows licenses. That means, your gift was actually a trojan horse designed to fatten your bottom line.
Stallman however, doesn't have a bottom line, although I'm sure he gets paid for his time. He doesn't make money off software licenses, and he doesn't make money as the shareholder of a major software company. That means he's actually doing this because he believes in it, which is admirable.
While I understand that communism has a bad name, on paper it is a beautiful thing. But only on paper, as it doesn't work when humans are added to the equation. If only we could somehow hold on to the "equal opportunity" part and the "you deserve to get what you need" part of socialism, while throwing away the "you can't have more than that - we will decide what you need" part that has always been added to it where it's been practiced, while at the same time holding on to the "excel if you can" part of capitalism, we'd have a much better world. Of course, I also know that I will never see that world, as it would actually require us to stop being so damn selfish all the time.
-- This sig for rent.
USSR, Cuba, and even "communist" China were never good examples of communism. They are all totalitarian states. Yet in America, we call them communism.
The truth is that only decent example of pure communism would be Israeli collectives.
The simple and obvious conclusion is that communism simply doesn't work beyond small, dedicated, voluntary groups. The Marxist ideal of communism supplanting capitalism on any scale larger than "small village" is a crock of shit. I once had a very illuminating conversation with a former hippy commune dweller, who really laid out the folly of universal collectivism. His observation was essentially this:
In the 60's the idea of communes was popular. At a new collective you'd have a fairly representative cross section of work ethics found in general society. At one end of the Bell curve you have the ringleaders, the Competent Idealists. These were the people who truly believed in the commune and usually were the ones who set it up and ran it, despite the supposed pure egalitarianism of the collective. They were the ones working 16-20 hours a day to keep the water running, the food cooking, and generally contributing effort wherever it was needed. Sometimes they'd be bossy dictatorial types, but mostly they were just skilled, energetic idealists who really wanted it to work. The classic "good" hippies who believed in self sufficiency and made their own clothes.
At the other end of the Bell curve you have the Leeches. These were the folks who thought communism meant you didn't have to work hard and that somehow food, clothing, shelter, and drugs would show up of their own accord. These were the "bad hippies", like the ones you used to find following the Dead around the country, living off the handouts of others, the kind of people who could say out loud at a party, without shame, "I've got papers if anyone's got weed".
In between you have the Vast Majority. Most of them were there because it was fashionable and sounded like it might be better than the status quo. They worked reasonably well, even if they weren't terribly skilled, and took direction fairly well from the Competent Idealists.
In the beginning, it worked. The Vast Majority and the Idealists were productive enough to make the inevitable Leeches not be a problem. As time went on, however, members of the Majority began to realize that commune life was not actually easier than life "outside". It was, in fact, more work for somewhat measurably less gain. The Majority, not being as thoroughly dedicated as the Idealists, just didn't get that same sense of satisfaction from living "outside the system". As time went on, the Majority began to shrink as disenchanted members left to get regular jobs that paid decent money and let you live in homes with running water. Eventually, as the Majority dwindled, they were left with a small core of hard working Idealists busting their asses even harder to support a small group of lazy slacker Leeches, while their standard of living continued to decline. At some point, the competent Idealists said "fuck this", and went to work for the EPA, or Greenpeace, or some idealistic org or another that needed competent folks and actually paid money. This left the commune unworkable and the Leeches went off to sell plastic beads to middle class concert goers and cajole others into letting them live in the closet under their stairs.
Now imagine what would happen if there were guards at the edge of the commune, telling the Majority folks "No, you don't leave. You get back to work." Any idealism they may have had is long gone. Clearly their motivation will drop to the lowest common denominator, that of the Leeches. Now, the Leeches work a little harder because of the guards with the guns, but not a whole lot. As a result you have a commune that's 10% hard workers, and 90% clock-punchers doing the bare minimum. This is why communism is doomed to fail (or at least doomed to stagnate) at larger scales. You can't enforce
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
Yeah people keep pointing out how poor Cuba is - poorest country in the Western Hemisphere etc, etc. Its worth pointing out that Cuba *is* so poor because the US continues to enforce its trade embargos over Cuba, simply because the US has abbrogated to itself the right to interfere in neighbouring country's politics.
Is it worth pointing out to those policy makers in the US, that if they lifted the trade embargos against Cuba, the influx of new trade, exchange of information, and monetary flow that would inevitably occur would not only result in great improvements in the Cuban economy, but probably a much greater push towards democratic rights for the citizens of Cuba? Look at China, while of course its still under the heal of the most repressive government on earth, capitalism is flourishing there because its essential for the country's growth, and some small freedoms are worming their way into the people's lives. Not much mind you, but some. The exact same thing could be happening in Cuba, if only the US could get its head out of its arse, and realize that while it may wish to actively promote democracy, the way to do so is by encouraging other countries and by example, not by punitively punishing countries because they are different.
"The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
Especially when they've read so much Engels, yet they still manage to misspell his name
The security thing is a red herring. 99.9% of the time, system security breaches are due to user stupidity rather than system design. Everyone knows this. Keep in mind that the original "hackers" were breaking into Unix and VMS systems, not DOS and Windows. As soon as you introduce the human element, you've got a potential security breach. Even if you could switch every single user to Linux TODAY, tomorrow you'd have the exact same problems.
Yes, Linux is more secure if configured right, however, it's certainly not immune, and the current generation of Windows OS's has narrowed the gap nicely. Your argument might have made some sense back in '98, but today it's really a non-issue.
(This is not to say he dislines - or likes - communism, capitalism or any other ism. My point is that it doesn't matter. What matters is whether he honors the very standards he sets, and this shows that he does so. What's wrong with that?)
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
I'm not asking him to cure the sick, give money to the poor, clothe the naked, and feed the hungry. I'm simply asking him to be consistent on his message that freedom is good, and I invite him to say so to the government of Cuba & Venezuela. Not congratulate them for valuing freedom, which they clearly do not.
This is not "Yays! Linuxes for the Peoples!" This is "Oh nos! Linuxes for your gulags, re-education centers, and government ministries!" The money the government saved will only be plowed right back into the pockets of the governors, or into finding new & creative ways to persecute dissidents & clamp down on "dangerous" freedoms. Or did you really think that the students at the state-run, state-controlled universities will be allowed complete freedom to set up a Cuban version of MySpace where dissidents can meet, plan, and disseminate their ideas?
And, also for the record, is there a single person here on Slashdot who really believes that the governments of Cuba & Venezuela would bat an eyelash about violating the spirit, letter, sanctity, and pure white virginity of the GPL if they thought it would somehow benefit them and give them greater control?
So, how you liking the computer you typed that post on, huh? Is it pretty nice? THANKS, CAPITALISM.
How about the house or apartment you're in? Pretty nice, how it's all well-built with construction materials and designed by some house manufacturing company. THANKS, CAPITALISM.
And the car you drive to work or school? That thing has an advanced combustion engine built by friggin' robots! THANKS, CAPITALISM.
Just checking... is there any argument lurking in here, or are you just pretending that capitalism is wholly responsible for anything and everything inside a capitalist state?
You like the clothes you're wearing? I bet they're pretty nice clothes. THANKS, CAPITALISM.
"It's your great nation that makes our happy meals possible."
So, it appears that supposed "blind luck" and those "craptacular market failures" are doing pretty well, at least to better your life.
Some of them, yes. I guess that means... nothing really whatsoever?
The real reason lefties love communism is because it puts all the power into the government's hands.
Oh, here it is. The classic "pardon me while I assign arbitrary preferences and motives to my opponents" style of argument. So let's get ridiculous. I'm sure you're right, the reason "lefties" want to regulate the market is solely to consolidate power in the hands of corruptable/incompetent government, in the barely whispered hope that some power-mongering dictator will abuse/misuse that power and make everyone's life worse. Yup, you've really hit the nail on the head. I'm sure none of them advocate it as a lesser of two evils, or see fundamental problems with the tendency of capital to get extremely lumpy if left untended, or care about the difference between partially transparent and nearly opaque organizations, or think that it's unethical to trade with rampant human rights violators, or think that a truly free market can act as a Petri dish for evolving new, effective ways to dump your costs on others. No, my fellow lefties and I love government regulation of the market because the market is the One True Enemy, Responsible for All Evils. Only by indulging in our basest fantasy (a giant flowchart that plans out the entire economy, perfectly, all the time) do we see the true path to freedom: slavery.
So we advocate public spending on research on the hopes that the government will research enough Big Brother tech to finally live our lives for us, not because we think the market (especially in some countries) is often myopic. We want universal health care to drive up costs and drive down quality, so we can gum up the extraordinarily successful private system we've got right now. We want better minimum wage to make it harder to own a small business, because it obviously doesn't benefit the workers anyway.
Instead of the people regulating their market as consumers
Oh yeah, us consumers are really sharp when it comes to that. We buy brand-name, chemically-identical-at-a-higher-price aspirin, because we saw a picture of it on television (which, of course, cost money to produce). We're all smart enough to know that getting the best deal is enough to regulate a free market (unless we saw an ad, but... cut us some slack, it was on TV!), and don't have to worry about corporate ethics. The modern, savvy consumer: a model of informed, responsible participation in a free market.
If other reasons we do lack, we swear no one will die when we attack
Stallman was able to visit Cuba because the US embargo is laughably unenforceable. The real reason why Cuba is poor is because, like some of his predecessors, Castro owns everything, Cubans own nothing, and the benefits of what Castro owns go back to Castro and not his serfs. And no, Castro is not the reason why Cuba has the highest literacy and lowest infant mortality rates in Latin America. Cuba was way ahead of the rest of Latin America before Castro took power.