Slashdot Mirror
Richard Stallman Answers Your Questions
samzenpus (5) writes "A while ago you had the chance to ask GNU and Free Software Foundation founder Richard Stallman about GNU, copyright laws, digital restrictions management, and software patents. Below you'll find his answers to those questions."
RMS: By way of explanation, I launched the free software movement; what I
say about software issues is based on our values of freedom and
community for the users of computers. We classify programs as either
"free" or "nonfree".
A few of the questions asked about "open source software" in such a way that, responding to them directly, I'd be classifying programs as "open" or "closed". That I will not do, because those terms presuppose a different philosophy based on different values.
Rather than give no answer to those questions, I modified them to say "free software" instead, and answered them that way. (Square brackets show these changes.) I hope the answers to these modified questions are of interest to readers. They are rather different from what an open source supporter would say.
NSA/GCHQ
by click2005
What are your views on the recent NSA activities and how do you think it will change free software & the internet?
RMS: Nonfree software is likely to spy on its users, or mistreat them in other ways. It is software for suckers.
Awareness of this is spreading, which helps us make the case for free software to people who are not computing experts.
As for the internet, it has been turned into a spy network. A considerable fraction of the massive surveillance (but not all!) applies to the internet. Most use of the internet involves web sites that snoop on users, which is poisonous. That's in addition to the snooping by ISPs themselves.
Massive surveillance of people in general endangers human rights and democracy; but we should remember that US snooping agencies do this mostly by piggy-backing on businesses that massively collect data about people.
Therefore, it is not enough to legally limit the government's access to the digital dossiers about us. We must prevent those dossiers from being made, either by business or by government. We must legally require digital systems to be redesigned so that they do not accumulate data about people in general.
Here is my full position on massive general surveillance.
Opinion?
by Anonymous Coward
What is your opinion on cryptocurrencies?
RMS: In general, I am in favor of ways to pay each other cash on the Internet without going through a payment company that keeps track of all payments. I would like to be able to pay an on-line service with cash the way I pay cash for all the things I buy today.
However, Bitcoin payments are not anonymous. To serve this need requires anonymity at least for the payer. People are working on trying to improve Bitcoin in that way.
I am not an expert on encryption, and I can't judge the security of any particular cryptocurrency. What I do know, and what is illustrated by the recent collapse of several exchanges (banks, in effect) due to robbery, including MtGox, demonstrates that, here as in any field, the security of a practical activity that uses encryption is a very different question from the mathematical validity of the encryption system or the correctness of the software. It may take years to develop cryptomoney exchanges we can have confidence in.
These currencies raise economic issues, too; but not necessarily the way many people think. The number of bitcoins is capped, but new cryptocurrencies can always be created, so that the total number of Xcoins for all values of X has no particular limit. Does this mean that the value of all cryptocurrencies will inevitably tend towards zero? Not necessarily; that depends on how much people accept various other cryptocurrencies -- a sociological question, not an economic one.
I don't enjoy risk, so I will not do speculation in cryptocurrencies any more than I do in other commodities. I may use them for payment if and when it becomes possible to use them anonymously to buy something that I can't get with cash. To resist surveillance, I do buy goods with cash in a store, so that no data base knows what I bought -- therefore, I don't pay over the internet. But I would use an anonymous cryptocurrency to pay for services and downloads.
Cell phones
by Anonymous Coward
I read a little on your website about your take on technology that uses non-free software. Do you still not own a cell phone?
RMS: I certainly do not! A cell phone is Stalin's dream: its movements are tracked, and it can be converted (through the universal back door) into a listening device.
AC: If not, I'd love to hear your perspective on life without one these days, where its just assumed that people own one.
RMS: Please help teach everyone that this assumption is false!
There is a way to make a cell phone acceptable _for occasional communication only_: put a one-way pager in the phone, so people can page you if they are trying to reach you. That way, you can keep its radio connection off most of the time. When you get the page, you can decide when and where to reveal your location by connecting the phone to the network.
Of course, the software in the phone's main computer should also be free, but that is a separate issue. In other words, nonfree software in that computer is one assault on your freedom, and the phone system's location tracking is another.
The software in the baseband (phone radio modem) processor can't be free, at least not as things stand now. So the phone needs to be designed so the baseband processor can't talk to anything (peripherals, antenna, etc) unless the main processor permits it, and so that the baseband processor can't change the software in the main processor. Ideally the software in the baseband processor should be immutable, so we can treat it as a circuit.
AC: As a follow-up, where exactly do you draw the line concerning [freeness of software] and whether or not you use software. For example, do you toast bread in a toaster that runs proprietary code? Obviously we're talking about different things here, but I'm curious to know at what point you say "no thanks!" when it comes to locked down technology.
RMS: The case of the toaster is very clear: we can't tell, except by taking it apart, whether it has a processor and software or a special-purpose chip. Since that we can't tell the difference, it makes no difference: therefore, a program that will never be changed is equivalent to a circuit. I don't care whether a toaster or microwave oven contains software.
A very common design approach nowadays is an appliance or peripheral that contains software that could be changed, but normal use does not include changing it. I think we can still disregard that software, as regards the ethical issue of free vs nonfree software; it is just a short way into thr gray area. However, such devices can be a terrible security threat, because a corrupted computer can install malware in them that will propagate. Devices which have this problem include USB sticks, microSD cards, disk drives, and the cameras that go in computers.
Where is the other side of the line? If the device has an "update firmware" button, that firmware is software meant to be changed, so it is unacceptable.
GTK future?
by Anonymous Coward
Dear RMS, I for one am very interested in what your view is concerning the future of GNOME and specifically GTK. In the past there were concerns over licensing between GTK and Qt and there seems to be a rise in uptake of Qt. My question is whether you see there being a future in GTK and should developers consider moving their projects to Qt?
RMS: I can't see the future, because nobody can. I hope that GNOME and GTK will be very successful. Please help make it so.
GNU/Hurd
by mrflash818
Please share your vision for where you would like to see GNU/Hurd, and GNU software over the next 25 years, and what people would be doing with it.
RMS: I regret to say I have no response. I never try to think about what computing might be like 25 years from now; it would be a waste of time, since I know that I don't know.
I can tell you something about free software 5 years from now: most of it will be the same as today. Free software does not change rapidly. (I think that is a feature; our society teaches people to overvalue innovation so as to distract them from more important things such as freedom, democracy, and giving everyone a comfortable life). Most of the GNU/Linux system in 5 years will be the same as what we have now; some components will be new, but they will be a small change compared with the system as a whole.
The GNU Hurd kernel (and the GNU/Hurd system, which is GNU/Linux with the Hurd instead of Linux) is not a high priority for us any more, because it would be a replacement for the free parts of Linux, and we don't need to replace those. Volunteers continue to work on the Hurd, because it is an interesting technical project.
The parts of Linux we need to replace are the nonfree parts, the "binary blobs". But replacing those has nothing to do with the GNU Hurd. The main work necessary to replace the blobs is reverse engineering to determine the specs of the peripherals those blobs are used in.
That's a tremendously important job -- please join in if you can.
Free hardware? Why not?
by jkrise
In my experience; it is far easier to obtain; install and work with Free Software than with Free Hardware. I asked you about this in person 2 years back; but you brushed it aside saying hardware is not trivial to copy. Recent events have proved me right; I feel. We simply do not have access to Freedom Hardware at low cost - even the Raspberry Pi has proprietary components in its hardware.
RMS: When you say "free hardware" I think you mean hardware whose specs are known, so we can develop free software to run it. I call that "documented hardware". When I say "free hardware", it means to transpose the concept of free software to hardware. This means People are free to copy and change the hardware; if it is made from a design, that design must be free, with the same four freedoms that define free software. But that is mostly an issue for future technology. Documented hardware is what we need now.
The scarcity of documented hardware is indeed a tremendous problem. In general I don't see any way we can fix it except by reverse engineering to figure out the specs.
jkrise: Why can't the FSF pool resources; license technology from ARM Holdings; and build a truly Free Tablet, Free Cellphone and Free PC running Free GNU/Linux instead of the pseudo-free Android? I am sure the community will pay any money to buy truly free Hardware from the FHF.
RMS: This would cost millions of dollars, and we have no skills or experience in hardware manufacturing, so we couldn't do it.
We could try to raise funds to pay for reverse engineering of the VPU in the Novena laptop -- if we could find skilled reverse engineers ready to take the job. Can you introduce me to any?
Shorter copyright
by oneandoneis2
I believe you're in favor of much-reduced copyright terms - a few years rather than the endless decades of today. If copyright were reduced to, say, five years, then the vast majority of GNU code would become public-domain - copyleft depending on copyright as it does, this would mean anyone could create a [proprietary] fork of, say, emacs. How do you feel about that?
RMS: For this very reason, I oppose shortening copyright to 5 years without making some other change to prevent this harmful consequence. See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/pirate-party.html.
With the 10-year copyright term I propose, this problem would not be significant.
People often identify proprietary software with copyright; there was a time when I did, too. However, that's a mistake. The two principal methods used to make programs proprietary are (1) EULAs (a legal method) and (2) keeping the source code secret (a technical method). Two secondary methods are (3) copyright (a legal method) and (4) putting the executable in a tyrant device (a technical method, see below). Patents are used too, but only to reinforce the others.
To defend our free software from being made nonfree, the only one of these four that we can use is copyright.
People like apps
by thetagger
There is an entire generation of people out there for whom mobile apps, mostly on iOS and Android, are the way in which they do their computing. The more successful apps are usually very well-designed with incredible user interfaces, an area where free software has not achieved much success, and sold at very low prices and,
RMS: These "advantages" can seem impressive to those who don't see what they cost in freedom. The most basic thing we must do is say, "I'd rather have nothing than have that," and then act accordingly.
thetagger: in many cases, also monetized through stolen personal data.
RMS: Please don't use "monetized" to mean "make money from". That word stinks of the attitude that "Profit justifies anything". See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html.
Besides which, the word's correct meaning is "to use something as a currency."
thetagger: It appears to me that the GNU project is mostly ignoring this important area - I am aware of Replicant and F-Droid but these are well behind their proprietary counterparts at the moment. What should we do? Ignore mobile and hope it goes away,
RMS: I personally will ignore it, because there is nothing about it that I want. Even if we assume it is has no phone radio connection, so it is not Stalin's dream, a computer with a small screen and no keyboard is so inconvenient as to be useless for me.
However, we need to try to bring freedom to mobile computer users. We must not ignore them.
thetagger: try to get onboard with Replicant and F-Droid,
RMS: If you want to use mobile computers, please contribute in this way.
But we will never have, in the free world, the sort of "social" snooping apps that so many internet users spend their time in. We can't compete in terms of the misguided values that our adversaries promote in order to ensnare people, and if we did, we would be doing wrong. We have to set an example of rejecting those values.
thetagger: try to bring in a new generation of free software developers that is native to the mobile environment,
RMS: If this is meant as an alternative to the previous two, I don't understand what it means. We welcome people of any and all generations in everything we do.
thetagger: or avoid the mobile "ecosystem" completely
RMS: In general, I avoid the word "ecosystem" in connection with computing because of its amoral premises.
In this case I'm at a loss for what it means. I don't understand how this option differs from the first option, "Ignore mobile and hope it goes away."
thetagger: and try to work on the hardware side and try to make free hardware that is not inherently trackable/centralized and then run free software on top of that instead?
RMS: When you say "free hardware", I think you mean documented hardware. (See above.)
We can in principle make our own documented hardware, but the only way that would directly help is by avoiding the need for reverse engineering to figure out how to run the peripherals. In practice, though, I think reverse engineering is probably easier.
However, preventing the tracking is another matter. The only way I can envision to prevent the tracking of geolocation of mobile phones is if you have them disconnected from the network nearly all the time. (Well, in theory it might work to carry a parabolic antenna so you can communicate with just one tower. Maybe that would prevent the use of triangulation to figure out where you are located. I don't know whether this could be made to really work. Does anyone want to try it?)
Fundamentally, privacy-preserving computing has to be done mainly in your own computer. We have to reject the dependence on servers that the proprietary world is pushing people into. Freedom requires local application programs, rather than "web apps" or server-backed "mobile apps".
Do you foresee a viable Free Car OS?
by Medievalist
Automobile user interfaces have become increasingly complex and de-standardized as computerization reaches into the driver's seat. The major vendors don't seem to care about possible legal liabilities of designing inherently dangerous UIs. Google has enticed Honda, GM and Audi to join the Open Automotive Alliance, but that project seems more oriented towards selling android and nVidia products than providing an objectively better car OS. Do you see a future where a real Free (or at least Open Source) car operating system is a reality, or do you think the car makers will just continue to create unsafe and unstandardized vehicle UIs indefinitely?
RMS: I don't see the future, so I can't tell you what will happen. I can comment on the problems I know about now in the automotive field, but I can't tell you whether we will win, because that depends on you.
It will be a hard fight to free the software in our cars, but it is essential for drivers -- and not just those that might wish to soup up or customize their cars. The issue affects everyone.
Proprietary software is an injustice in itself, but it also leads to further secondary injustices, such as malicious functionalities. In the case of cars, those can include surveillance and back doors, as well as DRM in the entertainment system.
To exclude those malicious functionalities, the users need to have control over the software. In other words, if you want to have even a chance to make sure that the only back door in your car is the one that lets you reach into the trunk, the software must be free/libre. Anything less is inadequate.
The question asks whether open source software might be almost as good as free software. The main difference between open source and free is in the values they are based on: free software raises the issue as a matter of right or wrong, while open source studiously avoids saying that. However, what's relevant to this question is the practical extensions of the two criteria. Those are _almost_ equivalent; nearly all programs that are open source are free software.
Source code that is open source but not free is rare. On GNU/Linux you will probably never encounter any. In a car, however, you really may find programs that are open source but not free. The main case of nonfree open source programs today is when you can change the source but you can't change the executable.
How is that possible? In such cases, the source is released under a free license; it is free software, and it is open source. You can change this source, but that doesn't do you much good, because you can't run your changed version. The executable comes signed by the manufacturer, and the processor it runs in is designed to reject any executable not signed. (We call such processors "tyrants".)
In the cases I know of, this program is a version of Linux, and the reason they can make its executable nonfree is that Linux is distributed under GNU GPL version 2. If it were under GPL version 3, the seller would be required to give you the signature key to sign executables for your car.
Android uses Linux (but not GNU; the only thing in common between the Android system and the GNU/Linux system is the kernel, Linux). If Android is used in a car, its executable is very likely to be made nonfree in this way.
Of course, tyrant processors can contain software whose source code is nonfree, even secret, and this too occurs in cars. However, those programs are not open source either, so they are not a difference between free software and open source.
What this shows is that we must insist that car software be free/libre; open source is not good enough. It is not enough to be allowed to play ineffectively with source code.
See here for more explanation of the difference between free software and open source. See Evgeny Morozov's article on the same point.
Projects not being done
by mwvdlee
Ignoring preference of [free software] license for a minute, the [free software] landscape has lots of software to satisfy a wide range of users. What piece of software is still sorely missing from the [free software] landscape that isn't yet being seriously attempted by any project? Short version; what [free software] projects still need to be started?
RMS: The most important missing programs are firmware for various peripheral devices, to replace the "binary blobs" found in the vanilla versions of Linux. Linux-libre deletes the blobs, and all the free GNU/Linux distros use deblobbed versions of Linux; that gets us a totally free system but it can't operate those peripherals.
It is also important to develop Gnash enough to handle the current version of Flash. People like to imagine that Flash is dead, but reports of its death are premature.
Look here for other things we would really like people to do.
free software into law?
by paulpach
You argue that it is unethical for someone to distribute software in a way that limits any one of the 4 freedoms to users. If you had the option, would you make it illegal to do so? In other words, if you had the option would you make it so that software developers were forced by law to use a free software license? or would you leave the option to the developers and try to convince them (without coercion) that it is the right thing to do?
RMS: In an ideal world, there would be no nonfree software. I think it is possible to get pretty close to that. But I don't propose to make nonfree software illegal under today's circumstances, because it is a leap too far; the public is not ready for it. Most users do not think that nonfree software is an injustice. A law that does not have public support is going to meet resistance.
What I advocate, for today, is to ban some egregious practices found in many proprietary programs, including digital restrictions management (see DefectiveByDesign.org), censorship of applications (jails) or works that can be viewed, or requiring code be signed with a key the user does not have (as in Restricted Boot; see fsf.org/campaigns).
Of course, there are other measures governments should adopt to recover computational sovereignty and lead society towards freedom.
We should also ban the practice of asking users of digital works to agree to contracts (EULAs) that give them less rights than copyright law allows to users.
A few of the questions asked about "open source software" in such a way that, responding to them directly, I'd be classifying programs as "open" or "closed". That I will not do, because those terms presuppose a different philosophy based on different values.
Rather than give no answer to those questions, I modified them to say "free software" instead, and answered them that way. (Square brackets show these changes.) I hope the answers to these modified questions are of interest to readers. They are rather different from what an open source supporter would say.
NSA/GCHQ
by click2005
What are your views on the recent NSA activities and how do you think it will change free software & the internet?
RMS: Nonfree software is likely to spy on its users, or mistreat them in other ways. It is software for suckers.
Awareness of this is spreading, which helps us make the case for free software to people who are not computing experts.
As for the internet, it has been turned into a spy network. A considerable fraction of the massive surveillance (but not all!) applies to the internet. Most use of the internet involves web sites that snoop on users, which is poisonous. That's in addition to the snooping by ISPs themselves.
Massive surveillance of people in general endangers human rights and democracy; but we should remember that US snooping agencies do this mostly by piggy-backing on businesses that massively collect data about people.
Therefore, it is not enough to legally limit the government's access to the digital dossiers about us. We must prevent those dossiers from being made, either by business or by government. We must legally require digital systems to be redesigned so that they do not accumulate data about people in general.
Here is my full position on massive general surveillance.
Opinion?
by Anonymous Coward
What is your opinion on cryptocurrencies?
RMS: In general, I am in favor of ways to pay each other cash on the Internet without going through a payment company that keeps track of all payments. I would like to be able to pay an on-line service with cash the way I pay cash for all the things I buy today.
However, Bitcoin payments are not anonymous. To serve this need requires anonymity at least for the payer. People are working on trying to improve Bitcoin in that way.
I am not an expert on encryption, and I can't judge the security of any particular cryptocurrency. What I do know, and what is illustrated by the recent collapse of several exchanges (banks, in effect) due to robbery, including MtGox, demonstrates that, here as in any field, the security of a practical activity that uses encryption is a very different question from the mathematical validity of the encryption system or the correctness of the software. It may take years to develop cryptomoney exchanges we can have confidence in.
These currencies raise economic issues, too; but not necessarily the way many people think. The number of bitcoins is capped, but new cryptocurrencies can always be created, so that the total number of Xcoins for all values of X has no particular limit. Does this mean that the value of all cryptocurrencies will inevitably tend towards zero? Not necessarily; that depends on how much people accept various other cryptocurrencies -- a sociological question, not an economic one.
I don't enjoy risk, so I will not do speculation in cryptocurrencies any more than I do in other commodities. I may use them for payment if and when it becomes possible to use them anonymously to buy something that I can't get with cash. To resist surveillance, I do buy goods with cash in a store, so that no data base knows what I bought -- therefore, I don't pay over the internet. But I would use an anonymous cryptocurrency to pay for services and downloads.
Cell phones
by Anonymous Coward
I read a little on your website about your take on technology that uses non-free software. Do you still not own a cell phone?
RMS: I certainly do not! A cell phone is Stalin's dream: its movements are tracked, and it can be converted (through the universal back door) into a listening device.
AC: If not, I'd love to hear your perspective on life without one these days, where its just assumed that people own one.
RMS: Please help teach everyone that this assumption is false!
There is a way to make a cell phone acceptable _for occasional communication only_: put a one-way pager in the phone, so people can page you if they are trying to reach you. That way, you can keep its radio connection off most of the time. When you get the page, you can decide when and where to reveal your location by connecting the phone to the network.
Of course, the software in the phone's main computer should also be free, but that is a separate issue. In other words, nonfree software in that computer is one assault on your freedom, and the phone system's location tracking is another.
The software in the baseband (phone radio modem) processor can't be free, at least not as things stand now. So the phone needs to be designed so the baseband processor can't talk to anything (peripherals, antenna, etc) unless the main processor permits it, and so that the baseband processor can't change the software in the main processor. Ideally the software in the baseband processor should be immutable, so we can treat it as a circuit.
AC: As a follow-up, where exactly do you draw the line concerning [freeness of software] and whether or not you use software. For example, do you toast bread in a toaster that runs proprietary code? Obviously we're talking about different things here, but I'm curious to know at what point you say "no thanks!" when it comes to locked down technology.
RMS: The case of the toaster is very clear: we can't tell, except by taking it apart, whether it has a processor and software or a special-purpose chip. Since that we can't tell the difference, it makes no difference: therefore, a program that will never be changed is equivalent to a circuit. I don't care whether a toaster or microwave oven contains software.
A very common design approach nowadays is an appliance or peripheral that contains software that could be changed, but normal use does not include changing it. I think we can still disregard that software, as regards the ethical issue of free vs nonfree software; it is just a short way into thr gray area. However, such devices can be a terrible security threat, because a corrupted computer can install malware in them that will propagate. Devices which have this problem include USB sticks, microSD cards, disk drives, and the cameras that go in computers.
Where is the other side of the line? If the device has an "update firmware" button, that firmware is software meant to be changed, so it is unacceptable.
GTK future?
by Anonymous Coward
Dear RMS, I for one am very interested in what your view is concerning the future of GNOME and specifically GTK. In the past there were concerns over licensing between GTK and Qt and there seems to be a rise in uptake of Qt. My question is whether you see there being a future in GTK and should developers consider moving their projects to Qt?
RMS: I can't see the future, because nobody can. I hope that GNOME and GTK will be very successful. Please help make it so.
GNU/Hurd
by mrflash818
Please share your vision for where you would like to see GNU/Hurd, and GNU software over the next 25 years, and what people would be doing with it.
RMS: I regret to say I have no response. I never try to think about what computing might be like 25 years from now; it would be a waste of time, since I know that I don't know.
I can tell you something about free software 5 years from now: most of it will be the same as today. Free software does not change rapidly. (I think that is a feature; our society teaches people to overvalue innovation so as to distract them from more important things such as freedom, democracy, and giving everyone a comfortable life). Most of the GNU/Linux system in 5 years will be the same as what we have now; some components will be new, but they will be a small change compared with the system as a whole.
The GNU Hurd kernel (and the GNU/Hurd system, which is GNU/Linux with the Hurd instead of Linux) is not a high priority for us any more, because it would be a replacement for the free parts of Linux, and we don't need to replace those. Volunteers continue to work on the Hurd, because it is an interesting technical project.
The parts of Linux we need to replace are the nonfree parts, the "binary blobs". But replacing those has nothing to do with the GNU Hurd. The main work necessary to replace the blobs is reverse engineering to determine the specs of the peripherals those blobs are used in.
That's a tremendously important job -- please join in if you can.
Free hardware? Why not?
by jkrise
In my experience; it is far easier to obtain; install and work with Free Software than with Free Hardware. I asked you about this in person 2 years back; but you brushed it aside saying hardware is not trivial to copy. Recent events have proved me right; I feel. We simply do not have access to Freedom Hardware at low cost - even the Raspberry Pi has proprietary components in its hardware.
RMS: When you say "free hardware" I think you mean hardware whose specs are known, so we can develop free software to run it. I call that "documented hardware". When I say "free hardware", it means to transpose the concept of free software to hardware. This means People are free to copy and change the hardware; if it is made from a design, that design must be free, with the same four freedoms that define free software. But that is mostly an issue for future technology. Documented hardware is what we need now.
The scarcity of documented hardware is indeed a tremendous problem. In general I don't see any way we can fix it except by reverse engineering to figure out the specs.
jkrise: Why can't the FSF pool resources; license technology from ARM Holdings; and build a truly Free Tablet, Free Cellphone and Free PC running Free GNU/Linux instead of the pseudo-free Android? I am sure the community will pay any money to buy truly free Hardware from the FHF.
RMS: This would cost millions of dollars, and we have no skills or experience in hardware manufacturing, so we couldn't do it.
We could try to raise funds to pay for reverse engineering of the VPU in the Novena laptop -- if we could find skilled reverse engineers ready to take the job. Can you introduce me to any?
Shorter copyright
by oneandoneis2
I believe you're in favor of much-reduced copyright terms - a few years rather than the endless decades of today. If copyright were reduced to, say, five years, then the vast majority of GNU code would become public-domain - copyleft depending on copyright as it does, this would mean anyone could create a [proprietary] fork of, say, emacs. How do you feel about that?
RMS: For this very reason, I oppose shortening copyright to 5 years without making some other change to prevent this harmful consequence. See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/pirate-party.html.
With the 10-year copyright term I propose, this problem would not be significant.
People often identify proprietary software with copyright; there was a time when I did, too. However, that's a mistake. The two principal methods used to make programs proprietary are (1) EULAs (a legal method) and (2) keeping the source code secret (a technical method). Two secondary methods are (3) copyright (a legal method) and (4) putting the executable in a tyrant device (a technical method, see below). Patents are used too, but only to reinforce the others.
To defend our free software from being made nonfree, the only one of these four that we can use is copyright.
People like apps
by thetagger
There is an entire generation of people out there for whom mobile apps, mostly on iOS and Android, are the way in which they do their computing. The more successful apps are usually very well-designed with incredible user interfaces, an area where free software has not achieved much success, and sold at very low prices and,
RMS: These "advantages" can seem impressive to those who don't see what they cost in freedom. The most basic thing we must do is say, "I'd rather have nothing than have that," and then act accordingly.
thetagger: in many cases, also monetized through stolen personal data.
RMS: Please don't use "monetized" to mean "make money from". That word stinks of the attitude that "Profit justifies anything". See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html.
Besides which, the word's correct meaning is "to use something as a currency."
thetagger: It appears to me that the GNU project is mostly ignoring this important area - I am aware of Replicant and F-Droid but these are well behind their proprietary counterparts at the moment. What should we do? Ignore mobile and hope it goes away,
RMS: I personally will ignore it, because there is nothing about it that I want. Even if we assume it is has no phone radio connection, so it is not Stalin's dream, a computer with a small screen and no keyboard is so inconvenient as to be useless for me.
However, we need to try to bring freedom to mobile computer users. We must not ignore them.
thetagger: try to get onboard with Replicant and F-Droid,
RMS: If you want to use mobile computers, please contribute in this way.
But we will never have, in the free world, the sort of "social" snooping apps that so many internet users spend their time in. We can't compete in terms of the misguided values that our adversaries promote in order to ensnare people, and if we did, we would be doing wrong. We have to set an example of rejecting those values.
thetagger: try to bring in a new generation of free software developers that is native to the mobile environment,
RMS: If this is meant as an alternative to the previous two, I don't understand what it means. We welcome people of any and all generations in everything we do.
thetagger: or avoid the mobile "ecosystem" completely
RMS: In general, I avoid the word "ecosystem" in connection with computing because of its amoral premises.
In this case I'm at a loss for what it means. I don't understand how this option differs from the first option, "Ignore mobile and hope it goes away."
thetagger: and try to work on the hardware side and try to make free hardware that is not inherently trackable/centralized and then run free software on top of that instead?
RMS: When you say "free hardware", I think you mean documented hardware. (See above.)
We can in principle make our own documented hardware, but the only way that would directly help is by avoiding the need for reverse engineering to figure out how to run the peripherals. In practice, though, I think reverse engineering is probably easier.
However, preventing the tracking is another matter. The only way I can envision to prevent the tracking of geolocation of mobile phones is if you have them disconnected from the network nearly all the time. (Well, in theory it might work to carry a parabolic antenna so you can communicate with just one tower. Maybe that would prevent the use of triangulation to figure out where you are located. I don't know whether this could be made to really work. Does anyone want to try it?)
Fundamentally, privacy-preserving computing has to be done mainly in your own computer. We have to reject the dependence on servers that the proprietary world is pushing people into. Freedom requires local application programs, rather than "web apps" or server-backed "mobile apps".
Do you foresee a viable Free Car OS?
by Medievalist
Automobile user interfaces have become increasingly complex and de-standardized as computerization reaches into the driver's seat. The major vendors don't seem to care about possible legal liabilities of designing inherently dangerous UIs. Google has enticed Honda, GM and Audi to join the Open Automotive Alliance, but that project seems more oriented towards selling android and nVidia products than providing an objectively better car OS. Do you see a future where a real Free (or at least Open Source) car operating system is a reality, or do you think the car makers will just continue to create unsafe and unstandardized vehicle UIs indefinitely?
RMS: I don't see the future, so I can't tell you what will happen. I can comment on the problems I know about now in the automotive field, but I can't tell you whether we will win, because that depends on you.
It will be a hard fight to free the software in our cars, but it is essential for drivers -- and not just those that might wish to soup up or customize their cars. The issue affects everyone.
Proprietary software is an injustice in itself, but it also leads to further secondary injustices, such as malicious functionalities. In the case of cars, those can include surveillance and back doors, as well as DRM in the entertainment system.
To exclude those malicious functionalities, the users need to have control over the software. In other words, if you want to have even a chance to make sure that the only back door in your car is the one that lets you reach into the trunk, the software must be free/libre. Anything less is inadequate.
The question asks whether open source software might be almost as good as free software. The main difference between open source and free is in the values they are based on: free software raises the issue as a matter of right or wrong, while open source studiously avoids saying that. However, what's relevant to this question is the practical extensions of the two criteria. Those are _almost_ equivalent; nearly all programs that are open source are free software.
Source code that is open source but not free is rare. On GNU/Linux you will probably never encounter any. In a car, however, you really may find programs that are open source but not free. The main case of nonfree open source programs today is when you can change the source but you can't change the executable.
How is that possible? In such cases, the source is released under a free license; it is free software, and it is open source. You can change this source, but that doesn't do you much good, because you can't run your changed version. The executable comes signed by the manufacturer, and the processor it runs in is designed to reject any executable not signed. (We call such processors "tyrants".)
In the cases I know of, this program is a version of Linux, and the reason they can make its executable nonfree is that Linux is distributed under GNU GPL version 2. If it were under GPL version 3, the seller would be required to give you the signature key to sign executables for your car.
Android uses Linux (but not GNU; the only thing in common between the Android system and the GNU/Linux system is the kernel, Linux). If Android is used in a car, its executable is very likely to be made nonfree in this way.
Of course, tyrant processors can contain software whose source code is nonfree, even secret, and this too occurs in cars. However, those programs are not open source either, so they are not a difference between free software and open source.
What this shows is that we must insist that car software be free/libre; open source is not good enough. It is not enough to be allowed to play ineffectively with source code.
See here for more explanation of the difference between free software and open source. See Evgeny Morozov's article on the same point.
Projects not being done
by mwvdlee
Ignoring preference of [free software] license for a minute, the [free software] landscape has lots of software to satisfy a wide range of users. What piece of software is still sorely missing from the [free software] landscape that isn't yet being seriously attempted by any project? Short version; what [free software] projects still need to be started?
RMS: The most important missing programs are firmware for various peripheral devices, to replace the "binary blobs" found in the vanilla versions of Linux. Linux-libre deletes the blobs, and all the free GNU/Linux distros use deblobbed versions of Linux; that gets us a totally free system but it can't operate those peripherals.
It is also important to develop Gnash enough to handle the current version of Flash. People like to imagine that Flash is dead, but reports of its death are premature.
Look here for other things we would really like people to do.
free software into law?
by paulpach
You argue that it is unethical for someone to distribute software in a way that limits any one of the 4 freedoms to users. If you had the option, would you make it illegal to do so? In other words, if you had the option would you make it so that software developers were forced by law to use a free software license? or would you leave the option to the developers and try to convince them (without coercion) that it is the right thing to do?
RMS: In an ideal world, there would be no nonfree software. I think it is possible to get pretty close to that. But I don't propose to make nonfree software illegal under today's circumstances, because it is a leap too far; the public is not ready for it. Most users do not think that nonfree software is an injustice. A law that does not have public support is going to meet resistance.
What I advocate, for today, is to ban some egregious practices found in many proprietary programs, including digital restrictions management (see DefectiveByDesign.org), censorship of applications (jails) or works that can be viewed, or requiring code be signed with a key the user does not have (as in Restricted Boot; see fsf.org/campaigns).
Of course, there are other measures governments should adopt to recover computational sovereignty and lead society towards freedom.
We should also ban the practice of asking users of digital works to agree to contracts (EULAs) that give them less rights than copyright law allows to users.
RMS: Nonfree software is likely to spy on its users, or mistreat them in other ways. It is software for suckers.
Yes, because insulting people who make or use proprietary software is a surefire way to convert them, right? The FLOSS community as a whole could use just a little bit of tact overall (RMS chief among them).
http://interviews.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4836163&cid=46347549
> Mr. Stallman, do you ever play computer games (video games)?
> If so, which ones?
From: Richard Stallman
Subject: Re: Slashdot ask RMS what you will
Date: Tue, 06 May 2014 02:46:49 -0400
The answers will be published soon, but the questions I got did
not include anything about what video games I play.
I won't have nonfree software on my computer, and that includes games.
But in fact I would not have time to play video games even if they are
free.
Its nice that he redefined the questions to ones that he wanted to talk about instead of answering the question as it was given.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Free Software Foundation chartered in 1985, GNU GPL v1 published in 1989.
Bell Labs was distributing source code for UNIX to universities for extension and modification in the 1970s. The University of Calfornia was being sued for giving away BSD while you were still wringing your hands about how to include other people's stuff in the GNU project.
Sorry, Stallman; you came late to the party.
RMS points out, in regards to paid apps:
These "advantages" can seem impressive to those who don't see what they cost in freedom. The most basic thing we must do is say, "I'd rather have nothing than have that," and then act accordingly.
the when asked about developing free hardware says:
This would cost millions of dollars, and we have no skills or experience in hardware manufacturing, so we couldn't do it.
To me , those two comments gets to the crux of free softwares challenges:
Without tangible rewards that allow people to do thing they like to do many things would not get done nor would we get many new innovative things. Sure, some people will code for the fun of it but that doesn't mean they will develop as complex and useful systems as the for profit world generates. Free software is nice and a lot of it is useful and as polished as non-free apps but a lot isn't. In the end, it is neither a better nor worse solution, just a different one.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
He is like a Tea Party supporter or a vegan PETA member, far off the mainstream and living in a fantasy world.
More specifically, the monopoly exclusion part of copyright and patent law should be repealed. No more exclusive rights.
So what's the incentive to create works? How is an author paid? No technical support needed for a book, you that red-herring can't be used.
I actually fail to share his fears. So someone creates a proprietary fork of emacs. Erh... ok. So? Let's be blunt here, such petty things never stopped proponents of CSS to simply rip off OSS and pretending they didn't. Try to prove they did, you're not going to see the source.
And if you think of the few router makers that got caught red handed, I can assure you that they're little more than the tip of the iceberg. A lot of OSS is being used in proprietary projects without ever being mentioned, let alone following its license and releasing the changed source code. If you think copyright protects OSS, think again. Nobody who wants to abuse it gives a shit about that license.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Well I came late to the party and it's already filled with Trolls and the flames are rising.
Call it karma whoring or whatever. I don't have enough mod points to make the AC's disappear so at the risk of it turning into ash in this thread I'll just simply say:
Richard, thanks. You are a big part of why I became a GNU/Linux user.
I still won't use emacs though! :-)
Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
So I have that going for me. I don't subscribe to ideologies, they are too confining and dividing.
All he did was correct errors like "open source". He answered the actual questions.
Of course RMS supports copyright. Copyleft uses copyright to outlaw plagiarism without outlawing copying. More importantly, copyleft uses the legal force of copyright to require that free software remains free. Public shaming is not enough to stop people from taking free software, making some changes, and then refusing to release their source code.
If you dislike copyright, you have the freedom not to use copyrighted works, including the freedom not to use free software. There is a public domain for you.
Classy.
.. but I assume questions were given before it occurred. I would have like to have asked RMS, what happened to his assertion hat source code transparency will protect us from very bad code, because many people's eyes are on it. But everybody could look at OpenSSL source for years and see the potential for Heartbleed and it never got caught until it was too late.
Libertarian political correctness?
No. Political correctness is about aboiding potentially inoffensive things because that tends to be bad politically.
RMSs list is about avoiding terms which are loaded, ambiguous or misleading. His list is merely a suggestion to avoid such terms in discussions.
You've already brought this up several times in the thread. It looks to me like you're starting a smear campaign.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Thank you for taking the time to reflect on and respond to these questions. In a world consumed with pragmatism and acquisitiveness, it is inspiring to see a person put so much thought and effort into reconciling his principles with his actions.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
No, more like: non politically affiliated clarification of ambiguous terminology
Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
I have always been a staunch supporter of RMS against those who attack him just because he holds so strictly to his values. You may not agree with him, but I think you have respect his tenacity in sticking to his position and the personal sacrifices he makes to do so.
That being said, how absolutely boring it is to read essentially the same message ("all software should be free and you should refuse to use any software that isn't free") repeated about 15 times with 15 minor variations. Surely RMS isn't this one-dimensional. I wish there had been some more interesting questions that weren't just prompts to repeat the free software mantra over and over again.
I met Stallman in 1999 or so, at a conference and went along with him and a bunch of his 'cronies' (people who seemed to know him well and defended him like rabid dogs) to dinner. I was honestly surprised to learn that he wouldn't use passwords on any of his computer accounts (somehow this topic came up when someone else asked him a question); I never learned exactly his feelings on the matter because when I tried to ask for some clarification I was immediately shouted down by his cronies who thought I was trying to hassle him or something (I assure you, I wasn't; I just wanted to understand his position better since I had never heard of someone refusing to use passwords and didn't understand why).
Now 15 years later I read his responses to these questions and it all feels very much the same. He's apparently super paranoid (worried about the government eavesdropping on your cell phone calls and tracking you? Wishing for a pager so that you could perfectly control how much tracking information you give when you answer your phone? Jesus christ, get over yourself!) and thinks everyone else should be too.
Honestly, my opinion of RMS was knocked down a notch or two by this interview. I can still appreciate in a sense someone who is so true to their values, but this level of one dimensionality is disappointing. Perhaps the questions are to blame though, they didn't give him alot of opportunity to talk about much else besides the FSF party line.
I think the assertion of a mobile phone listening device "universal back door" requires a citation. Anyone? Google only finds sensationalist journalism and not any real research, eg http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2006/12/can_you_hear_me/ from 2006...
Why did he keep assuming that the free hardware questions referred to "documented hardware" and not free hardware as he stated? When I think of free hardware I think of free designs that I can build myself with the right tools. In effect, it is documented hardware by default. Why assume the commenter didn't know what they were talking about? It seemed kind of mean-spirited.
-SaNo
The purpose to copyright is not to prevent plagiarism. That's a separate issue entirely. The copyright issue is this:
1) Author A publishes a successful book.
2) Publisher B wants a cut of the profits and so makes a run of the books with their own cover art. However, they put the author's name on the cover. They don't sign a deal with the author or give him any money.
3) Movie Studio C wants a cut of the profits and so makes a movie based on the book. They don't sign a deal with the author or give him any money.
4) Gaming Studio D makes a game based on the book. They don't sign a deal with the author or give him any money.
How do you prevent 2-4 from happening or give the author legal recourse if it does happen? This (specifically #2) is what originally spawned copyright.
Of course, the problem then becomes giving someone a permanent hold on items like this locks up parts of our culture. So there's a trade-off. Society grants the author a temporary monopoly on the work. In exchange, the author gives it up to the public domain after a set period of time. When this was 14 years (plus a one-time 14 year renewal), things worked well enough. The problems began when the media companies realized they could essentially keep the "temporary" monopoly forever and not give the items to the public domain by lobbying Congress to extend the amount of years that copyright lasted.
If we reverted copyright to 14 years plus a one time 14 year renewal, most of the problems with copyright would go away. Add in a splitting of penalties into commercial infringement (e.g. burning copies of DVDs and selling them on the street corner) and noncommercial infringement (e.g. downloading from a P2P application), keeping the penalties for the former as is and tying the penalties for the latter to a multiple of the market value of the item (e.g. 10 * the cost of the DVD) and virtually all of the rest of the copyright issues would go away,
Of course, given that we're up against the big media companies who want copyrights to last forever and who want penalties to be higher, not lower, I'm not holding my breath.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
I read what he has to say because I have respect for his accomplishments regardless of his point of view. I do not have to agree with everything he believes in. I want software that works. I am as likely to use a blob (non-free) driver if it works as to use a free one that works.
I personally benefit more from having a mobile phone than I fear being monitored or tracked by it. I am aware that having this phone does allow for this to happen. I was joking about "TV watching us" more than 10 years ago. It was actually funny, and I got "picked on" for saying it. That joke isn't funny anymore these days.
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
He defined questions to have specific meanings when their original meanings were not necessarily specific enough for someone as pedantic as he is.
He has good reasons to do so if you understand such things.
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
Did he? I'm under the impression that the notion was simply not formalized. Like "I don't care", "I didn't think about it, here's some BASIC listings / floppy / tape / 300 bps download". A theoretical and legal foundation was to be made and the randomness of History made it so R.M.S. Stallman did some of that.
I wasn't around for the 1980s university computing and home computers with audio cassette, I lived through the 90s instead when Internet access was very rare or a US thing. It was the DOS/Windows era of freeware (and shareware) : "here's some binaries".
I miss the freeware somewhat on Linux. There were tons of little cool games and apps, which were the work of a single author. Things were simpler : the application didn't need to be maintained to work, it had no concept of networking, there was no modern "app store" - but the stuff had to be bundled on magazines's CD or go through floppy sneakernet.
Free software (in opposition to freeware) really took off when there was affordable Internet access (i.e. DSL) and the general public got networking capabilities similar to the US university campus in the 80s (minus USENET, at the time it was on the way out and behind paywalls). It got more obviously and ever incrementally useful, e.g. when running Windows you could run Mozilla or Firefox to not get infected, then there were stuff like Media Player Classic (to escape Windows Media Player 7, which was a memorable "WTF?" moment to me), open source codecs, and some various stuff. All things that a lone wolf coder couldn't do anymore.
The linux thing (and BSD and whatever) had been going on already, but nobody had spare computers worth a shit or just a spare hard drive to install even a bare command line Free Software OS on, outside of some very narrow geek circles.
I did install linux from a magazine's CD in 1997 or such : installer was straight-forward and allowed me to resize the Windows 95 partition (great!, but probably easy since it was just FAT) but after installing and reboot.. Linux was unbootable, Windows 95 would boot in under a minute all the way through showing the full desktop then hang with the mouse cursor unmovable and nothing working. I got some flak for that. We deleted fucking everything (formatting the quarter-height 5.25" hard drive). That was the experience and I can't tell what was the distro (only I don't remember it was Slackware or Debian).
He's got decades of this under his belt. Ask him about whether red sauce or green sauce is better for drive-through tacos, he'll talk about freedom and oppression the same confounding ways.
As for myself, I'm much more in the Torvalds camp. Substantive freedom is a practical freedom as well as a prophylactic one; it's the freedom not just *from* things but *to do and participate in* things.
Sure, I want the freedom to protect my data or change my software. But I also want the freedom to buy and use a device that I think is great, or to participate in the mobile ecosystem (sorry, RMS) because I find it to be useful.
RMS can't distinguish between the two, or between the different kinds of restrictiveness at issue—the commercial software restrictiveness that is certainly annoying and terrible for our world, but also the FSF-styled restrictiveness that shoots itself in the foot and ends up being exactly the same.
In both cases, the end result is that I can't do what I want with my software/hardware. The commercial interests are at least open about it: we don't want you to do that because it would hurt our profits. The FSF is less open about it: we're not responsible for this, it's their fault—you're free to do your own thing.
Yes, maybe in theory I could rewrite the entire GNU codebase from scratch or get a world of developers together myself to do my own thing, but substantively speaking, in terms of actual opportunity structures available to me right now, today, or next week, or indeed for most people *as themselves, during their regular lives*, there is about the same amount of substantive freedom and restriction involved.
If I want to do X with my tech, and company X won't allow it with their toolchain, and the open computing world won't support it for ideological reasons, the net result is still that *I* am *practically* unable to do X with my tech.
Part of the FSF problem is that they often delegitimize X. RMS's answers about, say, "cloud" computing or the mobile ecosystem are instructive here, and mirror common answers in free software developments from techs. "That is not a real thing, it's just marketingspeak, you are a victim of ideology, and no, we won't help you."
Operating under the Thomas theorem and using the well-respected argument made by Rawls, I'd say that RMS fails to distinguish between summary rules and rules of practice. For RMS, there are only summary rules—things that we decide or don't decide to do, and espouse for utilitarian reasons. All of his arguments are utilitarian in nature (though often convolutedly so). Even when they involve other people or "society," his arguments boil down to rational self-interest calculated according to a very narrow range of values and goods, discounting the rest.
He ignores the dimension of rules and practices that are oriented toward social life—toward behaving in ways that others understand and that enable one to substantively participate in public and group life by virtue of conceding them as ordering principles for "how the world works right now."
The FSF vision of computing is, ironically, radically individualist and lonely in this regard—it is all about "what I can accomplish on my own." The only "we" that it acknowledges is one that is made up entirely of people that have precisely the same ideological outlook, goals, desires, and summary rules as the self. All other forms of "we" are reimagined as secretly selfish people that *claim* to be a public, but are in fact actually seeking to dominate one another. For RMS, "we" hasn't happened yet and he is trying to bring it about through summary means—as a rational self-interest calculation.
But a world of identical "free-people" in which the "we" finally comes about by virtue of the universal embrace of FSF values simply doesn't and won't exist—people are different, desires are different, and that which is in one person's self-interest is never necessarily in everyone's self-interest.
To believe in
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
The Supreme Court has consistently upheld your freedom to walk.
To even seriously say this is to admit that you despise freedom. You're literally defending the egregious violation of people's fundamental liberties and the fourth amendment. You disgust me.
The existence of alternatives *does not mean the government can infringe upon your rights when you try to use a certain option*. The government does not have the power to infringe upon your rights just because you want to get on a plane; it's unconstitutional, regardless of what judges say. Why not just suspend all rights in a certain city? You can move elsewhere if you don't like it; you have that freedom.
Copyright infringes upon your free speech? You mean it stops you from claiming others' speech as your own. So, no.
No, that would be something else entirely. Most people who voluntarily copy around copyrighted data do not claim the work is their own; your comment is once again ridiculous.
Transferring data is, in fact, speech, no matter what some judges say. Do not bother appealing to authority, here. What is it when websites accused of infringing upon copyright get taken down? Censorship. Censorship is always intolerable.
Copyright infringes upon your private property? You mean it stops you from selling others' property for your own private profit. So, no.
Simply incorrect. The notion that you can somehow own the data on someone else's equipment and control what they do with it is absurd.
Why do you despise freedom with every fiber of your worthless being? Move to North Korea, you piece of dog shit.
Yea, politicians do that, which is all he is. A politician pushing his own selfish agenda, while you can argue that he isn't being selfish based on the agenda he is pushing you would be ignorant of history to do so.
He changed questions so he could answer them as he wanted to answer, not as he was asked.
That doesn't impress me and if you were smart it wouldn't impress you either.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
He even said as much when he ranted about the use of LLVM, because it wasn't GPL v3 compatible (by design).
Heaven forbid people use a tool chain that is even more free than his particular flavor of free.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
UNIX however was not free software. It wasn't even Open Source as defined by the OSI. After reading the interview I guess one could call it documented software.
RMS isn't Linux, that's Linus.
So... if you can't refute his ideas then your fallback position is to attack the man himself?... pathetic.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
And all of that is standard marketing practices; and marketing is necessary when you're trying to get people to buy in on your philosophy.
For example, problems become "issues", because problems get fixed, while issues get resolved. "Fix" sounds like something is broken, where "resolution" is much more positive. Or, at least, that's the bullshit that was given to me once.
The whole world shines shit and calls it gold. Free software is no different.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
I think the same conversation was heard shortly before Jesus was lynched.
Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
What "irks" you?
Is it something like "twerk" or "quirk"?
Do you have a philosophy beyond "just getting by"?
Are you jealous that he has a clearly articulated philosophy?
Does it bother you that he doesn't force you to believe in his philosophy but merely offers his opinion?
Are you irked by corporations which allow you to sell your privacy/security/freedom for money?
Are you irked that RMS doesn't offer you money?
Perhaps you could enlighten us?
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
Libertarian political correctness?
I don't know where you got the idea RMS is a libertarian. Even a quick read of TFA should have clarified that point for you. But quoting another interview:
....I'm a Liberal, not a Libertarian.
I think it is good to regulate businesses in any way necessary to protect the general public well-being and democracy. For instance, I support consumer protection laws, which are needed precisely to stop business from imposing on their customers whatever conditions they can get away with in the market. I support rights for workers which companies cannot make their employees sign away. I support the laws that limit the conditions landlords can put in a lease. I support the laws that help employees to unionize and strike.
All in all, I think it is a mistake to defend people's rights with one hand tied behind our backs, using nothing except the individual option to say no to a deal. We should use democracy to organize and together impose limits on what the rich can do to the rest of us. That's what democracy was invented for!
And we should abolish the "free trade" treaties that obstruct the use
of democracy for this purpose.
But then, as others have already stated, you're on the wrong track with PC to begin with.
=kw= lurkin' to please
been done outside of free software.
I'm with you—his brand of activism isn't helping. It also isn't hurting. It's just irrelevant at this point.
That's sad because there's definitely room for forces to be aligned against DRM and proprietary-ness, and the FSF ought to be on the front lines of making important contributions in this regard.
But FSF advocates often simply write off most of what regular people actually care about. It's not "let's create a society in which you can watch your Hollywood blockbusters in a more free and equitable way," it's just "we won't watch this Hollywood blockbuster and if you care about your freedom, neither will you."
There is no recognition of the fact that the freedom that the user seeks is *precisely* the freedom to watch *this Hollywood blockbuster,* and that as a result, the FSF position comes off as nonsensical to most people:
"We would like you not to be able to do the things that you want to do. After all, if you do them, you'll lose your freedom!"
For the average person, this is paradoxical at best—after all, the freedom that they seek is *precisely* the freedom to do the things that they want to do. What other freedom could these FSF people be referencing?
The argument is often framed as a kind of "big picture" calculation, i.e. short-term gratification vs. long-term thinking. But in practice, the desires at issue aren't addressed in the long-term frame; they're simply dismissed (Why would you want to do that anyway?), undermined (There is no such thing, you'd actually be doing something else, you've been lied to!) or mocked (Oh, I see, we're dealing with the sorts of people that watch Hollywood blockbusters. We don't talk to people like you or care to hear anything that you have to say, and with good reason!)
I was once an FSF fan (back when it was Emacs under SunOS and the GNU tools seemed so powerful in comparison to vendor-supplied equivalents) but the political dimension of the project has overshadowed—and not in a good way—all the coding that the FSF has ever done, and that code is now simply obsolete.
It doesn't matter if Emacs is a great. The best Emacs ever is, at this point, still an anachronism. The world is busy innovating in the mobile computing and networked services/informatics space. RMS is busy building the best hand-cranked butter churn the world has ever seen.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
He makes a clear distinction between what he calls "free software" and "open source" software, and for him the phrase "free software" are inescapably linked to a particular philosophy. Stallman didn't launch open source, he launched free software.
RMS is a nice counterweight to Larry Ellison and Steve Ballmer.
But that's not to say that any of these people are particularly multidimensional, or particularly sane.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
And, by being focused, he's accomplished a lot. If you want to make a difference, you're more likely to do so by finding something you really care about and pushing it while dealing with other topics only as necessary.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
why it's still not the year of free software on the desktop.
Which is no doubt fine for you—you'd just as soon deny it to all of those boneheaded idiots.
But lots of them would like to have it do things for them, if it can do the things that they actually want to do well, and do them at lower cost, and do them in ways that actually do increase freedom.
It just seems—rightly so, for most people—that it can't, along any of these measures. And so long as this remains the attitude, it won't.
Which, as I acknowledge, is no doubt fine for you.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
He changed some of the questions so that he actually *COULD* answer them... because he considers the questions which referred to the terms that he changed, as they were originally asked, to be too ambiguous to give a response. Since this wasn't an interactive question period where RMS could ask the questioner for clarification about what the questioner actually meant, the only alternative would have been for RMS to simply ignore all such questions. RMS admittedly took a gamble in rephrasing the question, therefore, hoping that how he interpreted the question was the correct one, but at least he acknowledges his own interpretation of such questions, where it is applicable.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Many a tyrant can make the same claim...
Loading...
If openssl were closedssl, do you think we would have learned about the exploit sooner? I don't.
microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
You seem to miss how the right (generally speaking - I suspect that these behaviors occur all over the spectrum) use political correctness: to be offensive while telling others they should not take offense. Making rape jokes next to a rape victim's cubicle at work? If anybody protests, they're just being "politically correct".
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Did RMS ever claim that free software was a protection from very bad code? I think you're confusing him with Open Source proponents like ESR. RMS is very clear in his writings: free software is a political movement, not a way to make high-quality software.
Also, is proprietary code any better?
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
And a truly free society wouldn't require you to do anything. Unfortunately real anarchy is unstable; all societies have some form of "you are not allowed to hurt others", and there goes freedom!
You object because he prefers to define his words precisely rather than deal with the inaccuracies of colloquial language use?
RMS: In general, I avoid the word "ecosystem" in connection with computing because of its amoral premises.
I don't believe that he is denying the existence of an ecosystem. Rather, he objects to its amoral character.
I couldn't find anything in his statements about "the cloud"... perhaps you could define it.
Words matter and definitions matter. RMS makes his definitions clear... most people don't and thus leave themselves room to change their position. He is not making up new definitions, he is avoiding confusion by clearly defining what he is saying.
RMS is not playing word games... however, you, sir, are.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
He discusses cloud computing here: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy...
Words matter and definitions matter only and precisely because *people use them together to get things done*. Language is a fundamental component of human collective activity.
"Being careful about definitions" is important as far as it goes, but it is not sufficient. It is also important to be careful about definitions while remaining true to colloquial use—at least if one wants to be heard and have one's arguments taken seriously.
When one carefully articulates definitions that run counter to common use, one isn't arguing about the referents of statements any longer, but about statements themselves. A pessimist might say that he's simply debating in bad faith. I suspect that it's a more acute case of what happens here on Slashdot quite often—a particular subculture is sufficiently removed from mainstream culture that the two simply can't talk intelligently with one another, because both are always and ultimately talking about different things, despite best efforts.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
Plagiarism is legal, unless it rises to fraud.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
I wish I could unpost to moderate.
The term, "politically correct" should be replaced with, "stop being a jerk."
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
Just remember that without extremists like stall man, the other extreme would have won I opposed.
> Political correctness is about avoiding potentially inoffensive things because that tends to be bad politically.
Agreed. That is why I call it Political Censorship. Censoring words because of some negative connotation which would basically screw the politician out of votes due to backlash.
I'm not impressed with your willful distortion of what happend; RMS is from academia, and the questions used "loaded" terminology. Good teachers will define and clarify terms in an answer, and correct students.
And no I'm not a RMS fan, and I'd say I only agree with about 33% of his world view
There was one theme to his answers that I've never noticed before:
I regret to say I have no response. I never try to think about what computing might be like 25 years from now; it would be a waste of time, since I know that I don't know.
I found these responses severly disappointing for that reason. Agree with him or not, it's sad to see the responses be essentially "I don't have a vision for the future of FSF, because I can't know the future." That sounds needlessly self-limiting.
"Max, come over here. French-Canadian bean soup. I want to pay. Let them leave me alone." - Dutch Schultz
yes, switch to OpenBSD, Theo and his point of view will certainly seem so soothing after the way RMS has treated these questioners today
HAHAHAHAHA
He did help the BSD projects in a major way, with his gcc toolchain and other OS utils (even if some BSD later replaced them)
Free software would be nowhere without RMS, even if he is a weirdo with bizarre views. I'm still thankful to him.
And a person's sexuality has exactly what bearing on their ability to code again ???
But BSD is as far from his philosophy as possible. I'd rather have seen him promote HURD, but w/ the goal of having a GPLv3 OS. Obviously, a newer microkernel than Mach 3 is needed - which would give it the 4th microkernel, but if they just forked Minix and loaded HURD on top of it, and then on top of that, he put his GNOME 3.10, GTK3.x and whatever else he desired, he'd have his completely libre eco... er, I-don't-know-how-to-describe-it-system. Toss it all under GPL3, or better yet, AGPL3.
Bell Labs Unix wasn't free. Indeed, the lawsuit against Linux because of Bell Labs IPR is pretty famous, and motivated the groklaw web site, which you may have visited. Bell Labs Unix is what became SCO Unix. So this is about as far opposite the truth as is possible.
It's certainly true that there was free as in beer software prior to the Free Software Foundation, but it wasn't political. Initially it was free because the money was in the hardware: you paid IBM $umpty-gazillion, and you got the operating system for free. Early home computers like the Apple II and Atari 800 came with source code listings for their ROMS.
However, there was no political movement to promote Free Software prior to the GNU Manifesto. And the Open Source movement is not the Free Software movement—in addition to having come quite a bit later, it does something different. If you think there's some other person who should be credited for starting the Free Software Movement, it would be interesting to hear who that would be. The only person I can think of is RMS.
If you read the GNU manifesto, he specifically talks about the problems with the MIT LISP Machine Operating System, which was free-as-in-beer, and which was taken closed by Symbolics, who hired most of the MIT hackers who worked on it. This specific experience is what motivated RMS to start the FSF, so to say that he didn't start the FSF because there was free-as-in-beer software before the FSF was formed is kind of absurd.
Of course, given your /. number, I'm guessing you weren't born then, so it's no surprise that you don't know about this. :)
Wow, this old objection? Again? Well, since it got modded so high, let's again mention some of the ways to make money from art, without copyright.
And, could do something like the ASCAP does. Anyone doing a public performance or display of someone's work has to pay the artist. This requirement can be set up without copyright. Control of copying is the wrong tool for that job. Instead, have a standardized Performance Fee, that does not require any permission, and can even be paid out of the public purse from funds collected for that purpose. Artists cannot stop someone from using work they created or derived, they have only the right to collect a fee whenever publicly known usage happens. Should also set the fees on a log scale, so that popular artists don't end up hogging most of the pie. Pay less per use as popularity rises.
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
Copyright and patents give creators the freedom to earn money off their hard work.
In the natural state (without copyright and patents), the creators can still sell their works. Those laws just empower them to stop others from doing the same.
In other words, the laws' effect is to take away freedoms, not add them.
Freeware was free-as-in-beer, not free-as-in-freedom. It's telling that you call it freeware and not free software—free software is a deliberate term of art that RMS coined to describe free-as-in-freedom software. It turned out not to be the best choice of branding because of that specific ambiguity, but that's water under the bridge at this point.
To be fair, today I have no fucking idea about what are people refering to when they talk about "the cloud", and what makes it different/new from what we had 10 years ago.
So I could understand that RMS's deffinition of "the cloud" would be different from the "expected" deffinition.
It is difficult to appreciate the breadth of the free software movement and all its derivatives (open source variants) today because we take them for given. The influence of the free software movement has been subtle but longstanding and profound. Obviously, taken to its extreme and purest form, the ideology is restrictive. On the other hand, people who do this kind of stuff are expected to be passionate about their ideas, just like artists are passionate about their art and athletes are passionate about their training. I know I won't be getting up at 5am to run 10km, but those who do are not necessarily sick psychopaths and, in a healthy society, we need passionate people even if they seem to deviate from "normal".
In the end, I learned to code with Emacs and GCC and some of my favorite software is GPL. Even if the free software advocates did not give us facebook and twitter, they gave us a lot of good shit and this contribution must not be drowned in the noise.
To get back to some more specific points, I think that relying on free software for privacy (against government or other intrusion) makes much more sense than relying on guns. There can be no easy solution against government surveillance or other forms of spying, but free software is probably the most legitimate defense against abuse.
Finally, the push for "open" standards and documentation has given good results (open source GPU drivers are way better than ten years ago), but must certainly continue. Similarly, the push against DRM has given distributors like GOG (gog.com). I suppose, many of Stallman's ideas are worth fighting, even if in a very specific moment most of us look at more practical non-free options (yes, I own a phone, for example :-)).
That was ESR, not RMS. RMS has always promoted free software as a moral thing, and not been concerned about practical arguments (beyond those that are tied up in freedom, not software development methodologies.)
Ironically for me I've always considered RMS's "You should have the right to read the code you're using and change if you dislike it" the ultimate practical arugment, with the "software should be collaborately developed" thing a little silly and ideological.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Despite being socially obtuse and offputting, Stallman is not only litterate in his correspondence, uncompromising in moral character, and keen at percieving threats to our freedoms.
Most Americans are not. Instead most Americans look to the TV, we look to celebrities. We look to proffesional PR men, and "Event organizers" more concerned about their own social capital and position on the ladder. We've become a nation of 12 year old girls, more concerned about appearance than substances. This is why America is rotting.
If more people had principles, we wouldn't have to worry about SOPA/PIPA, the DMCA, and people might vote for canidates that made a diffrence.
Between him and Schiener, I say is this generations two defining intellectuals.
Except no one will buy it for $49.99 if someone copies it and sells it for $3.99 or less. The creator spent months/years and tons of money to get his work published. The copycat spent an afternoon and bought just one copy to get his business started. If you call this natural, then picking pockets should be legal. Copyright and patents are government protections against intellectual property theft that gives assurance to the creative people that their time and money spent on creating intellectual property will be rewarded fairly. This is because most intellectual property is easy to copy while copying physical products, like a car, is difficult. That is, until 3D printers evolve further.
What gives these other people the right to profit or distribute someone else's work without permission and causing financial harm? They did not spend any time or money in creating it. Whether you admit it or not, information is an asset and most assets on this planet have a price tag.
2) Publisher B wants a cut of the profits and so makes a run of the books with their own cover art. However, they put the author's name on the cover. They don't sign a deal with the author or give him any money.
This (specifically #2) is what originally spawned copyright.
That is a common, but subtly flawed misconception. The raison d'etre of copyright is not to prevent others from doing anything. It is to motivate the progress of science and the useful arts. You are confusing the mechanism with the purpose. The current mechanism that we use to channel cashflow to inventors and creatives is limited monopoly. The purpose of that monopoly is the cashflow; if we could acheive the same thing without the monopoly, the world would be a better place.
It is this confusion of the mechanism with the purpose of copyright that leads to things like DRM, which fails to inhibit infringement but does require non-infringing users to jump through hoops and use intentionally crippled hardware.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
Absolutely, Just because someone asks for the "least inaccurate oversimplification" does not make it incumbent upon the person asked to join the asker in abandoning accuracy for convenience.
Getting paid up-front ensures that the artist gets paid while freeing up our culture so that anyone can use it without restrictions. In fact, with a kickstarter-like model, it will be in the artist's best interests to make everyone share as many copies of his work as possible, as the more people enjoy it, the more will be willing to contribute to his next project. That's exactly the opposite of the copyright model, where it's in the artist's interest to persecute sharing.
I've written more about this on slashdot previously. I host a copy of that here if anybody's interested.
you were saying?
It is also worth mentioning that "Linus's Law" was not coined by RMS, and that RMS's defintion of "bad code" is probably much different, and more nuanced, than yours or mine. That's taking into account that he's likely several orders of magnitude the code-programmer than most here will ever hope to be.
~.~
I'm a peripheral visionary.
The GPL's failure mode is BSD, which still makes the world a better place, just less so.
There are worse things in life and this is not much of a criticism against the GPL. You could justifiably call it a strength.
~.~
I'm a peripheral visionary.
On the internet it's often hard to know if people are serious or just joking, but this reply assumes you were serious. First of all, the grandparent wasn't talking about dictating anything. He was making a suggestion in the hopes that others would find it interesting. With enough people agreeing, perhaps one could democratically agree to make it so. Nothing about a single person dictating anything.
Secondly, the grandparent wasn't taking about dictating how anything should be sold. He was discussing alternatives to monopoly on distribution. Right now we enforce an artificial monopoly on the distribution of works. This is done to encourage authors to create new works. The idea is that they will prevent others from making copies (via their monopoly), and make money by selling copies of their work. But that's only one way one could make money on one's creative output, and it might not be the best one. The grandparent pointed out several alternatives. What they have in common is that they can all function without artificial monopolies on distribution.
For example, with a Kickstarter-type method, an author would describe his plan for a new book on the site, and set his price for writing it (say $100,000). If enough people choose to buy in, he would write the book and publish it. At that point, he would already be fully compensated, and would have no need to prevent people from sharing the book. In fact, the more widely the book is shared, the more exposure he will get, and the more people will be willing to finance his next book, letting him set the next price higher. Sure, a new author would have a hard time getting people to finance him - he would probably have to write the first book for free, and use that to show his worth. But that's pretty similar to the current way of doing things, where you need to have written something very substantial by the time you approach a publisher anyway.
Getting paid up-front not only ensures that creative people are encouraged to create - it does so without putting the public in a straightjacket like the current system does. I think it's pretty neat that the internet has made the kickstarter-type approach viable (and it does seem to be viable, in the 4 years since it was started, more than 50,000 projects have been funded like that, many of them at more than $1,000,000). It probably wouldn't have worked at the time when copyright was first created. So I think this is a case of new technology allowing a better solution to a social problem.
Reality dictates this, not me. Copying cannot be controlled. Copying is easier than ever now, and will become easier yet. Can't make money off a tollbooth when everyone can so easily avoid it. Have to fund the endeavors some other way. Change the business model. That's change, not abandon business altogether. Artists don't have to become Communists. But they will have to use other means to earn money for their efforts.
Nor should we want a toll on copying. Communication and sharing made us what we are, built our civilization. Don't give that right up! A world in which copying can be somehow magically controlled is a far worse world than the one we actually live in.
A pity that so many people are fighting reality so hard, messing up lives and holding us all back.
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
So if a car was to be made with Libre operating software, I guess that the buyer would have to at least sign a waiver, which states that in case the car is operated on modified software, the warranty is voided (at least for issues conceivably linked to control/monitoring system changes) and the car maker from liabilty for any damages caused even partially or conceivably by operation of the modified software.
Other than that sort of concern, I generally applaud the good fight for software user rights. Where would we be without this sort of tireless advocacy?
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
We could try to raise funds to pay for reverse engineering of the VPU in the Novena laptop -- if we could find skilled reverse engineers ready to take the job. Can you introduce me to any?
A quick search turns up this product description which points to the Freescale i.MX6Q specs.
Does anyone know what he means with "VPU"?
The GPU is a Vivante GC2000, which has been partially reverse engineered already; support is being added to etnaviv, which is a user-space driver -- the part connecting Mesa + Gallium to the kernel driver -- for the Vivante graphics cores (support older cores like the GC860 is good enough for everyday use). The kernel driver itself (galcore) is available under GPL, although it could use a cleanup. So there is no need to reverse engineer everything from scratch, but the etnaviv project could certainly use more contributors.
There is also a video decoding acceleration block in the i.MX6, but like all things H.264 that is likely a patent minefield, so I'm not sure it would be worth spending a lot of resources on reverse engineering that.
Maybe he's a... Libretarian
Whole time I read this I could hear Stallman's voice. This might be why I skimmed through the second half.
It's not that I don't like him or support him, it's that I think his insistence on "GNU/Linux" as a mouthful whenever referring to Linux is childish and ridiculous and, more to the point, egotistical/annoying.
The correct link for the FSF's high priority project list is
http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/priority-projects/
The chorus of criticism for Richard's willingness to repeat his point of view here is far more repetitive and tiresome than RMS has ever been.
I mean, say what you want about the tenets of Free Software, Dude, at least it's an ethos.
freedom. I'd venture to say that I value the kind of freedom that they provide me more highly than I do the freedom from any one free software instance.
If I had to choose between "you never see the source, and have to pay big bucks, but Google continues to work as-is" and "no Google, but you get the source and the ability to control your own devices," I'd go for the first option in a second, because it enables me to do more things—not in theory (in theory, of course, the opposite is true) but certainly in actual everyday practice.
As I've outlined elsewhere in this discussion, but perhaps not so explicitly, the problem with RMS and the FSF is that they care only about one kind of freedom directly: the freedom to control one's own hardware and software.
This freedom is seen as being logically prior to all others. In a bizarre, historical sense, that may be true—if hardware and software had always been completely and entirely locked down, we wouldn't have the computing world that we have today.
At the same time, most people can not and do not take advantage of this freedom, don't care much about it, and might even have a great deal of trouble imagining what it amounts to.
But the list of things that they are able to do thanks to Apple and Google that they couldn't do without Apple and Google is quite long and quite clear to them.
There's nothing wrong with wanting to protect openness, but FSF discussions always manage to carry this to the logical extreme: you shouldn't use Apple and Google because they may eventually, someday lead to the end of open computing (e.g. the end of Apple and Google). So, even though Apple and Google radically expand the list of choices that you have at every moment of your life relative to not having them, you should forego them and have neither. Not to worry, though—since you have the more fundamental freedom (the freedom to control your software and hardware), you can just remake Apple and Google!
This is not going to fly with the average consumer. They won't be getting a free and open Apple or Google anytime soon—and thus, not using Apple and Google represents a net loss of freedom for them.
The best analogy I can think of is that of dropping someone in the middle of a wilderness with no other people in it and over which no state has control, then flying away and yelling down to them as you depart, "Congratulations! You're the freest person on earth! Enjoy the rest of your life in the wilderness, where nobody will ever control you again! And don't worry—if you get bored or lonely, you can always build civilization anew, this time with More Freedom[TM]!"
For the wilderness explorer that likes a solitary existence (or, say, the RMS-styled software developer), this may all indeed be true. But most people would find this kind of freedom less desirable than, say, the freedom that comes with a management job, a million dollar bank account, and an apartment in a major city.
The wilderness explorer cries out, "But you're not free! You have to go to work! You have to use a bank! You have to pay the rent! You have to pay your taxes! A policeman could write you a ticket for any number of things!"
Everyone else says, "You poor thing—living in the wilderness all alone like that, with no amenities, no friends, and nothing to do!" (Think RMS in his no mobile phone, doesn't use anything but Emacs, has never seen another email client world.)
Which one is "freedom?" It's a silly question. They both are—or they both aren't. Because freedom isn't an objective quantity.
As I mentioned in another post, society doesn't come to us as an empty field of possibility. It comes to us with conventions and practices that are well-established and well-understood at any moment in time. These open up new possibilities for individual life—that is, in fact the benefit of "society" in the first place, and why we bothered to evolve the capability—it enables us to build New York City, or create an
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
That's a lame excuse because copying has always been easy, even decades ago. If the majority won't pay, there won't be much content to consume ignoring low-quality content (whipped out in less than a day) -- blog posts, such as on this site, forum posts, reality tv shows, youtube videos about some mundane topic etc.
If you don't believe me, take a look at the iphone appstore where apple and the consumers forced itunes music price structure onto software apps. That is, a song is 99 cents, therefore apps should also cost around that value. Apps that are much higher than $5 don't sell much. Pre-iphone, even the simplest desktop app sold for $10 to $25. The result of the $1 to $4 price range of iphone apps has resulted in extremely simple apps with no depth or breadth in functionality, only good superficial looks. If you refuse to pay for content, that's the quality of content you can expect in the future.
Mandatory Access Control, or "application censorship" as Stallman calls it, is just a refinement of earlier security practices. His own GNU system enforces Unix's user/group access controls. A process running on a user's behalf is not allowed to interfere with other users in the same system. It turns out that programs can do undesirable things to the user's own stuff (mostly from accidental security vulnerabilities), so it's helpful to limit what a program can do. The only alternatives are for you, the user, to limit yourself to running programs that you can study and verify that they simply do not do bad stuff, or to disconnect yourself as Stallman has done. Ain't nobody got time for that.
Have a nice time.
It was the people who wrote code and got big business to use it were the people who created the movement.
That's not the movement he's talking about. He's talking about the free software movement.
You're talking about the movement to downplay the importance of the Four Freedoms and replace strong copyleft licenses with Tivoized versions.
This Q&A reminds me a lot of that Tom Cruise interview about Scientology. Stallman's language is very evocative of cult indoctrination. "We" are the correct ones, "they" are trying to "get us", "their" method is an injustice against "us", hyperbole like "Stalin's dream", and demanding full commitment, i.e. "The most basic thing we must do is say, 'I'd rather have nothing than have that,' and then act accordingly."
It's funny, because this is how Stallman has always spoken of his gospel, and yet his followers have the gall to refer to Apple's customers as "sheep".
I actually fail to share his fears. So someone creates a proprietary fork of emacs. Erh... ok. So?
I also question the claim that someone making a fork of emacs somehow makes the original emacs less free. How does some company taking free source and adding things to it change the original in any way? You might not want to use the original because there are improvements in the forked version, but so? You weren't going to pay for the original anyway.
While getting paid a fixed amount upfront is risk free, (because if you don't reach the $100K kickstarter goal, you don't have to write the book), the author is leaving a lot of profit on the table. Why should the author work so hard to earn such a meager sum? He would be better off doing a 9-5 job with little risk and making roughly the same income.
To understand what leaving profit on the table means, take a pizza shop as an example. Per day, the owner spends $200 on rent, $300 on employees, $400 on food material and $100 on other expenses for a total cost of $1000/day. What you are suggesting that once pizza sales for the day exceed a certain fixed threshold above the cost, say $1500 (or $500 profit), the pizza owner should give out free pizza to the remaining customers. So according to your upfront price sales model, if the pizza shop makes $3000 sales on a particular day, it should collect only $1500 and hand out $1500 worth of free pizzas. If all retail stores followed this communistic model, then yes, I agree that authors should be satisfied with a fixed price of $100K. But if not, then no thanks, why should creative people be underpaid, while business people maximize their profits?
It's not RMS's fault that he was asked similarly un"interesting" questions that each came with the repetitive prejudices (asking about the younger movement he didn't start instead of the older movement he did start, framing issues in terms of amorality and not questioning what non-free software entails). Looking at the questions, it's clear that they were asked by people who didn't bother to read the essays linked to in the original /. story soliciting questions for him. I remember when /. used to criticize behavior like that. A lot of what people bump into are issues where software freedom has a practical response that can liberate users from dependency on untrustworthy programmers, but thanks to an amoral stance on these issues the public is never taught to see how a technocratic/developmental stance (open source, focus on features and price, focus on slick interfaces) can run contrary to their interests (preserving their privacy, retaining and exercising their civil liberties, not being beaten or killed). It's convenient to see a movie when you wish, but certainly not as important as avoiding being spied upon everywhere you go.
That's probably because you haven't been paying much attention to what Edward Snowden has been telling us, nor have you been thinking deeply about the consequences of those revelations. I suggest watching Eben Moglen's insightful talks on this topic for some historical perspective on how "one-dimensional" your take is and how much under threat the entire world is these days. That is, if you're not too busy dismissing Moglen for being an FSF lawyer and former FSF board member who deeply appreciates software freedom for its own sake.
I'd be more likely to believe you on this claim if the rest of your opinions were better defended. But it's awfully hard to take someone too seriously when they're so easily dissuaded by stylistic matters over substantive examination of pertinant issues.
Digital Citizen
oh you silly westerners!
I think the same conversation was heard shortly before Jesus was lynched.
"Take, eat your toe cheese in rememberance of me"?
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
It's so convenient to argue against yourself isn't it? No need to ask him what he actually thinks (his email address is readily available) or read any of his many essays. You might be particularly interested in a list of surveillance examples found in proprietary software including one pertinant description for a program you just mentioned—"Angry Birds spies for companies, and the NSA takes advantage to spy through it too.".
Digital Citizen
Permanent monopoly, with product price being reduced gradually. That is, every few years, the product price is reduced a certain percent until it reaches a final value.
Copyrighted materials don't hamper the progress of anybody else other than low-quality knockoffs. So why is the monopoly only for a limited period? What difference does it make if Mickey Mouse is copyrighted by Disney for a million billion years?
I've also read many arguments for how software can be monetized by selling technical support for the non-technically literate people. IIRC, this is how many GNU/Linux companies earned their money
Nature gives me the right to rip someone off and profit from their work? Huh. They didn't teach us that in Biology 101.
the idea of correcting a question is fine...or at least could be acceptable...and it is done by unscrupulous politicians constantly
the problem is *how*...he said enough to indicate that he has *some* capacity for human interaction and what is considered socially acceptable
he didn't have be a dick about it and correct the text of the question in that manner...nor was a preamble explanation needed...
he should have just corrected it like this: "If you are asking {new nomenclature} then X...if not then Y"
whether or not you agree with that, it's clear that the overall tone was a bit pompous and overly self-aware...
like most neckbeards
Thank you Dave Raggett
Yeah, that bothered me too...
It shows reductive thinking...over-simplifying into a binary some behavior that is more complex
Here are RMS's options for users of software:
1. Use all free software
2. You are a sucker
choose one
It's kind of pitiful actually...right?
It's like the notion that someone could understand how non-free software can be anti-user yet still choose to use the software is not possible in RMS-land
Does anyone know him personally on here?
Can any /.'ers talk some sense into the man? He seems awesome wrapped in neckbeard
Thank you Dave Raggett
2) Publisher B wants a cut of the profits and so makes a run of the books with their own cover art. However, they put the author's name on the cover. They don't sign a deal with the author or give him any money.
This (specifically #2) is what originally spawned copyright.
Not to take away from your argument, but that statement is incorrect. The very first copyright law was "An Act for preventing the frequent Abuses in printing seditious treasonable and unlicensed Bookes and Pamphlets and for regulating of Printing and Printing Presses."
In other words, its original motivation was to limit the ability of people to print whatever they liked - in other words, an engine of censorship.
The US Constitution framed the rationale for copyright differently, as did French copyright law, which introduced the concept of 'droits d'auteur', or authors' rights.
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
From 2006 "FBI taps cell phone mic as eavesdropping tool"
http://news.cnet.com/2100-1029...
~"functioned whether the phone was powered on or off."
Today is more about gov malware in your modern mobile OS.
So yes the telco software/hardware layers are fair game to any gov and have been for years with court docs mentioned in the US press.
The journalism going back years was the result of US court documents.
Now just get it all http://www.wired.com/2014/03/s...
Also see the http://www.reuters.com/article... ideas around domestic phone records.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
http://richard.stallman.usesth... has a hint under "What hardware do you use?"
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
You present copyright as a moral system. I see it as a practical system.
Your argument is that 2, 3 and 4 are unfair. They are, but I can avoid it quite simply, by not making my book availalbe (or by not even writing it). If I have protection then I can quite happily make my book available. It also makes it afforable to create.
Just an aside. I agree that a 14 year renewal would be fine. Most of the material published in 2000 is out of print and very difficult to obtain, so any argument about losses by the media cartels should be taken with a pinch of salt.
Why should the author work so hard to earn such a meager sum? He would be better off doing a 9-5 job with little risk and making roughly the same income.
$100,000 was just an example. I chose it because it seemed like a quite good salary (2-3 times higher than what I earn as a scientist) if he can manage one of these projects per year. But the author sets the price himself. If he doesn't feel like working for $100,000, then he can ask for $400,000 instead. Of course, the higher his demand, the harder it will be to find enough people to meet it.
What you are suggesting that once pizza sales for the day exceed a certain fixed threshold above the cost, say $1500 (or $500 profit), the pizza owner should give out free pizza to the remaining customers.
No. I'm saying that before making each pizza the pizza house owner should ask to be paid. He sets the price himself so that he covers his costs for running the restaurant + any amount of profits he wants. And only when he's paid does he make the pizza. That sounds quite a bit like a normal pizza restaurant, doesn't it?
In your pizza description, you seem to assume that the pizza chef makes tons of pizzas beforehand, and then tries to get paid afterwards. But that is a paid-after-the-fact model (like our current copyright model), not an upfront payment model.
Just to be clear: The author is not employed by somebody who sets an arbitrary price per creative work that he has to slavishly accept. This isn't the case of the state telling everybody that they must work for $100,000 per book or something. Every author is his own boss, and directly asks his potential audience to finance him, choosing the amount he asks for completely freely. This system does not rely on any invervention from external powers at all. So no special laws to force authors or the public to behave in certain ways.
Exactly, if the book is a dud, it isn't worth even $10,000 (funding public loses), or it could be worth $10,000,000 (author loses), making billions in movie sales and worldwide book publishing, so upfront pricing is highly inefficient. By agreeing to get paid $400,000 or some low salary x 5 or 10 amount, authors may lose their one time opportunity to make it big. This type of stuff happens everyday -- programmers who conceive, design and implement great software get paid around $100K while companies that simply provided them with that fixed salary make millions or even billions off that software. The risk to the company is low as it can afford to lose a million or two in programmer salaries, but if they succeed, the profit can be 10x, 100x or even 10,000x their original investment. Your pricing model exploits/abuses the creative class just like the business class exploits the creative class. Except this time, it is the common people exploiting creative people. Whereas before, the common people had to collectively pay $10 million to read a bestseller, now they only have to pay $500,000 -- pure communist exploitation.
Before the restaurant owner receives a single cent of customer money, he has to spend the $1000/day so that he is ready to receive customer orders. If only a small number of patrons visit him that day, he will probably end his day in a loss and if there are many such days, he will have to shut down his business because he is out of capital he can risk. Until it is well established, there is considerable risk in owning a business, unlike a relatively stable salaried job. Except a business can earn orders of magnitude more than a salaried job, if the owner can handle the risk.
Sorry, but the $100,000 and $400,000 prices you cite are arbitrary fixed prices (as I have shown in the first paragraph). Without copyright, he has no choice but to accept this slavish income or quit and find a regular day job.
BoomBoom wrote:
> So what's the incentive to create works? How is an author paid?
The author proposes a work. He finds customers who want it made. He sets a bounty level. The customers pay the bounty (if not, author revises his bounty or moves on to another idea). The bounty is held by an independent third party (escrow). The author makes the work. The author releases the work TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC and receives the bounty.
https://www.schneier.com/paper...
I'm not saying it's a perfect model (in particular there is controversy about non-paying users benefiting from other's payment), but unlike RMS, I am at least answering your exact question. ;-)
Andrew Oakley - www.aoakley.com
What the hell? Someone asks for scientific proof that copyright does what it's supposed to do, and you reply with an emotional appeal?
The sole purpose, and I do mean the sole purpose of copyrights (and patents) according to the highest law of the land in the US, is to encourage innovation. Giving authors little monopolies is merely a means to an end. If copyright does not do that, then it is not working, and these restrictions shouldn't exist.
So, rather than changing the topic, why not provide the proof he asked for?
Common people are not the only people in the world who deserve freedoms you know.
Authors (Anything but "creators.") have freedoms as it is. They can try to sell whatever it is they want to sell, but they should not be given little monopolies over ideas or procedures. Let the free market decide how successful they are.
If they aren't successful, then too bad.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
Sure. Lots of effective practices don't carry their own morality with them, and can be used for good or for evil. That doesn't make them wrong or evil of themselves.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Also, given his long standing support to Left wing causes, what exactly does he have against Stalin to call cellphones 'Stalin's dream'?
One can be a collectivist while opposing authoritarianism. See Political Compass.
No. Left wing means 'pro-authoritarian' that pays lip service to Carl Marx's flawed political philosophy.
The words you are looking for is 'libertarian' or 'classical liberal'.
The left owns Stalin, Hitler, Mao and Pol Pot. Accept it.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Only by ignoring the key flaw of collectivism. Unhealthy concentration of power.
Most capitalists know the key flaw of their political system (markets have to be lightly regulated to work). Why do no leftest know the show stopper flaw in their political system?
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
His definition of "free software" tells users how they can and cannot use the software. His ideal "free" software would not be free except by his made up definition.
It's not "free as in freedom", it removes freedoms, like the freedom to keep your changes to yourself. You take away one person's freedom and give it to another.
I can't agree with forcing people to be altruistic. Now if the argument is that GPL is a necessary evil that contradicts its own agenda, I can appreciate that. What I can't stand is flagrant BS that RMS claims to be "free" software. There is nothing inherently wrong with using GPL, that's up to the person doing the work, but the argument made about being "truly" free is utter crap. It's "mostly" free. BSD even has restrictions, but those less about removing freedoms from the end user and more about getting credit where credit is due.
RMS can both be oversimplifying a complex issue AND a major contributor to FOSS software....BOTH CAN BE TRUE
yeah...no shit sherlock
***anything*** we do on a networked computer is vulnerable
ANYTHING
I've understood that since my dad (who was a cryptographer in the Navy in the 70s) explained how punch-card authentication works during the first Reagan Administration
So...yes...I fscking understand it
What I **don't** understand is the BINAR
1. use only free software
2. you are a "sucker" (aka you're an idiot)
It's bullshit........I like using the damned internet....I fscking *know* how trackable everything is...I used to be a network admin....
Just like we put our lives in other driver's hands every time we drive....using a networked computer is inherenly risky
If RMS wants to be consistent then HE COULDN'T EVER DRIVE ON A CITY STREET
b/c...you know..."risk"
Thank you Dave Raggett
Let me propose some features of the system that I consider desirable (in the artistic sphere I'm most engaged in):
The copyright system from when I was young (14+14 years) worked well for all these things.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Why are you replying to a post about tyrants with an observation about "effective practices"?
It's like arguing "good and evil people both breathe air, that doesn't make air wrong or evil" - well, of course it doesn't...
Loading...
RMS, I appreciate the time you spent organizing your responses.
To others... I see a lot of "he's a jerk" and "...his selfish agenda" comments. Exchanging a few emails with RMS years ago and reading/listening to his writings and public speeches isn't sufficient for me to know whether I'd want to maintain a personal friendship with him, given the opportunity, but it is sufficient to see how he respects others. "Selfish agenda?" Looks like one of the least selfish agendas ever to me. Short, frank, blunt, terse? You bet. We asked questions, we got answers. "Changes the questions?" Some people, consciously or not, try to shape conversations with the terminology they use. He refuses to play along. Uncompromising? Apparently. Who better to defend Free Software from all threats and publicly identify those threats? One other thing I noticed: he readily admits to having changed his views based on experience and new information. I can think of a lot of folks that either 1) don't change their minds no matter what and/or 2) won't admit they did even if they did.
"So what's the incentive to create works? How is an author paid?"
Well I don't know about you, but I'm paid a salary and I certainly create works. Copyright wouldn't change that in the slightest because it's all bespoke.
"No technical support needed for a book, you that red-herring can't be used."
You've still got large organisations (like governments) that would pay a salary for textbooks to be written for schools like they always have. Writing fiction would just become something you do because you enjoy and if you can sell copies on the side then great - this, and commissioned works are how things used to work anyway. Perhaps this way we could remove the 99% of dross that floods the shelves of places like WH Smith too.
But there's also a question as to whether some books are an outdated format anyway. I can't remember the last time I bought a programming book to teach me about APIs or a new language, the internet was always sufficient.
The idea that music, and written works and so forth would disappear without copyright implies that there were no written works or music before copyright was created in about the 18th century. Obviously this is false.
The problem is it's hard to imagine how we would live without copyright because we've been bought up to live with copyright, but you've got to realise the likes of the printing press came about as much as 400 years before Copyright as we know it today, but perhaps even more interesting is that the enlightenment began, lasting around 150 - 200 years and ended just about the same time as Copyright came about. Which isn't to blame Copyright for it's demise, but simply to point out that it happened without it. That one of our greatest periods of knowledge growth happened when works could be copied freely.
Finally, it's worth keeping in mind why Copyright came about - largely to control who could print what and to put the ability to perform censorship in the hands of a select few in the higher echelons of power.
To be perfectly honest, I'm just playing devils advocate to a degree here, I'm not sure that complete abolition of Copyright is the best option. But I'm also not sure it isn't. I do however think it's worth keeping an open mind and being aware of the idea that there's no evidence that copyright has been of inherent benefit to humanity though given that some of our most important historic works were written after the days of the printing press and mass copying, and before the creation of copyrights and that this period lasted for a much longer period of human history than the era of copyright has.
I think if you ask the question "But how will Miley Cyrus survive as an artist if everyone can freely copy her music, no one's willing to pay for it, and she's only willing to do a couple of actual days work a year?" then you'll get the answer that sure, you need copyright to protect her. But at that point I think the wrong question is being asked - instead it should be "Will people who love music still produce and distribute quality music if the only money in it for them is to go and perform live?" and I think the answer is yes, absolutely. It would in fact mean more live performances as how hard you work would determine how much you make, rather than the current status quo of how much of a monopoly your record producer is and how good you are at avoiding getting screwed in contract negotiation. It'd also mean more free music as that would be the greatest promotional material going. It's win-win for anyone that doesn't just want to do a few hours a month and spend the rest of their life working towards the inevitable heroin overdose from having too much money and too much time on their hands. Of course this is mostly hyperbole, the argument applies to a lesser or greater degree in other cases, but you get the point I'm sure.
"3) Movie Studio C wants a cut of the profits and so makes a movie based on the book. They don't sign a deal with the author or give him any money."
Given that this happens anyway due to Hollywood Accounting where they manufacture a loss (and instead let all their sub-companies make the profit) I'm not entirely sure what difference copyright makes?
Besides, I'm not convinced it's a bad thing if people produce derivative works. Some out of copyright works have spawned numerous film creations over the years, and you know what's great about it? We actually have a choice of whose adaptation and interpretation of the story to watch because sometimes the "official" versions are completely shit.
Hollywood Accounting is another issue entirely (and is a horrible thing that should be stopped). Let's use the Harry Potter books as an example. They became very popular and so JK Rowling was able to sell the movie rights to them. The studio made some movies off of them and everyone was happy. In a world without copyright, the minute a movie studio saw the first Harry Potter book selling well, they could rush out a horrible Harry Potter movie without the author's consent. Then another movie studio could do the same. And a third and a fourth. We'd be inundated with cheap Harry Potter knock-off films and the occasional decent production. JK Rowling wouldn't have any say in this nor would she be compensated at all.
Of course, if a movie studio wanted to wait 28 years (14 years + one 14 year renewal), they could release a Harry Potter movie in 2026 if we limited copyright to the original length. This would allow for the author to profit off of "approved" versions and would allow for interpretations/adaptions to come relatively quickly. With a 14+14 copyright length, anything from 1986 and earlier would be fair game.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
"Hollywood Accounting is another issue entirely (and is a horrible thing that should be stopped). Let's use the Harry Potter books as an example. They became very popular and so JK Rowling was able to sell the movie rights to them. The studio made some movies off of them and everyone was happy."
Were they? some people hated the film adaptations - I personally thought the first few films at least (the only ones I've seen) were slow and boring as shit. JK Rowling had disputes about payment. You can't just brush off Hollywood Accounting it's a separate thing - it fundamentally demonstrates the point that Copyright is broken if it's goal is to make sure the original author gets paid if there are always ways to get around that anyway, which there are.
"In a world without copyright, the minute a movie studio saw the first Harry Potter book selling well, they could rush out a horrible Harry Potter movie without the author's consent. Then another movie studio could do the same. And a third and a fourth. We'd be inundated with cheap Harry Potter knock-off films and the occasional decent production. JK Rowling wouldn't have any say in this nor would she be compensated at all."
Why must she be compensated for work she hasn't done? is Steven Hawking compensated each time his theories are discussed, and written about? Copyright is arbitrary, it's designed to let the select few lazy people who do a few years work as JK Rowling did live off it for life which is a nonsense. Your whole set of ideas is based on the premise that this is a good or necessary thing - it's not, it's a complete nonsense. The only professions in the world where you do work once and keep getting paid long after the fact are those covered by copyright whilst there are equally professions who produce similar material, but who have to keep working.
You're also running with another premise that you have no evidence for - that all we'd get is cheap knock offs and that there'd be no quality films, that we wouldn't have a choice but to suffer cheap knock offs. That's incorrect, there have been many a cheap knock off of many stories but I assure you, no one has ever forced me to watch them, I've always had the choice of watching the non-shit ones. Their existence hasn't in any way hampered my life, so you've failed to explain why the creation of them even matters? If a studio that has a bad reputation produces one, or that gets terrible reviews then don't watch it. But you not wanting to watch it doesn't mean it's better for others to not even have that choice, it doesn't mean it's better that everyone's forced into the one single mono-culture where everyone has to see the same thing and has to see the same take on it whether they like it or not.
Copyright tries to legislate against reality and human nature, and that's what makes it a nonsense.
You're rehashing an ancient debate. You want software to be free as in free beer. When you get free beer, you can do whatever you want with it and the person that gave it to you has no say after you get it. Stallman wants software to be free as in free speech. You can't incorporate President Lincoln's Gettysburg Address into a book you wrote, put the book on sale, copyright the book's contents, and then sue anyone anywhere that quotes the Gettysburg Address for infringing on your copyright.