Slashdot Mirror
The GNU Manifesto Turns Thirty
An anonymous reader writes: It was March, 1985 when Richard M. Stallman published the GNU Manifesto in Dr. Dobb's Journal of Software Tools. Thirty years on, The New Yorker has an article commemorating its creation and looking at how it has shaped software in the meantime. "Though proprietary and open-source software publishers might appear at the moment to have the upper hand, Stallman's influence with developers (among whom he is known simply by his initials, 'rms') remains immense. When I asked around about him, many people spoke of him as one might of a beloved but eccentric and prickly uncle. They would roll their eyes a bit, then hasten to add, as more than one did, 'But he's right about most things.' I told Stallman that I'd spoken with several developers who venerate his work, and who had even said that without it the course of their lives might have been altered. But they don't seem to do what you say, I observed; they all have iPhones. 'I don't understand that either,' he said. 'If they don't realize that they need to defend their freedom, soon they won't have any.'"
Convenience trumps ideals more often than not.
Though I consider myself an open-source programmer, and an open-source advocate, it's not for the same reasons as Stallman. It's not because of some fantastical ideal (even though I'm right behind things like Freedom of Information Acts etc. I consider them an entirely separate matter, and FoI kind of implies open-source at the highest ends of government, but we have neither FoI nor OS at those points anyway), it's because it makes things easier and my code isn't in any way "precious" that I need to lock it away.
So when I go on forums, I apply my "IT guy" persona to things and thus you get automatic sharing anyway. How do you fix that problem? How did you configure that system to do that? What software did you use? Where's the script you wrote to do X? We share this information in the same way that we share code, and IT is quite an open profession in my experience. I can ring up old colleagues and get scripts and documentation that cost them HOURS of work sent over and nobody will make a big fuss about it. In fact, they're usually happy to help and the agreement is reciprocal anyway.
That, to me, is the essence of open-source, not some cataclysmic Big Brother event stopper. The fact is that, where it matters, we never have had the code, or even the data, or even acknowledgement of the existence of the data anyway. And it's perfectly possible to run any system without reliance on a particular company and with auditable source and for free. The "dream" has been achieved but now people want to move the goalposts.
I agree that we shouldn't rest on our laurels, but OS by its nature develops on its own anyway. The guys with iPhones? Maybe they like using iPhones and there's no OS equivalent that works how they want? Or maybe they are aware of the contradiction but want a fashion item. The beauty is that their choice is just that - theirs.
The options are out there. They could run Android, even a "clean" non-Google version, at any point. The goal should be for the option to exist, not to FORCE everyone onto open-source against their will. To me, that just reeks of the same problem we were trying to avoid.
And the options exist, therefore we're done.
He's right about most of the things he says, and that's also the reason why there are so many haters.
If you look closely at the opponents of the free software movement you'll find out that most of them have no good arguments at all (except lame ad hominem attempts). Or they use weak fake arguments they do not believe in themselves, because they are (i) working for a large company dealing with proprietary software, or (ii) are disgruntled independent developers who really really would like to use some GNU libraries but at the same time refuse to respect to the licence.
The problem is that the world is just too complex, that even the few of us who want to understand and make informed decisions cannot be experts on everything...
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
When I first encountered GNU it was in the age of Windows 3.1 and 386 processors. I had just received a shareware utility program which included GNU tar as part of the distribution. I read the GNU General Public License of GNU tar and it impressed me because it was refreshing to see a program license that not only gave me unlimited usage of the program (GNU tar, not the shareware utility) but also gave me the right to study the source code, modify the source, and then redistribute the program. All the other programs that I've noted at the time had various usage and distribution restrictions in their licenses and GNU tar was outstanding in this regard. I was not a programmer at the time but I understood the utility in being guaranteed the right to modify the software.
The next time I encountered GNU was during a Stallman lecture about his free software movement. He taught us that proprietary software is anti-social and harmful to our freedom. How could my beloved software (that has served me well for such a long time) harm my freedom? The idea that I could have total freedom in my computing were implanted as a result of that lecture but I was too addicted to the software I was using to do anything meaningful afterwards. His GNU system that he wrote for the express purpose of escaping from the world of proprietary software was too much of hassle to bother with; I was quite comfortable with my system that ran Windows 98.
As time moved on, I had to use and manage all sorts of software in my job and in my personal life. I started to notice the points that Stallman had indicated: proprietary software intends to divide society by restricting users from sharing the software while simultaneously encouraging users to adopt the software, users are locked into a single source of help if the software needs fixing and users are helpless to help oneself, the users' computing belongs to the owners of the software which means it's quite possible that the owners of the software put their own interests before the user by putting in a backdoor to protect their interest.
Time and time again, Stallman had proven to me that I chose a life where my own computing did not actually belong to me. When I realized this, I knew that I had to start migrating my computing into the world of free software. It's been many years and it's cost me a lot of money and today, I am proud to say that 100% of my personal computing and the vast majority of computing in my businesses actually does belong to me. Thanks Mr Stallman, the cost was expensive but your activism taught me of a life where I don't need to bound to the rules imposed by proprietary software and by association, you've also given me the passion to consider the wider topics of society, politics and freedom.
Stallman doesn't believe that having an option implies having freedom. Stallman believes that freedom is a matter of self-control and your choice to accept your iphone means that you've chosen to let Apple control your life in your phone. You may have paid for your iphone but Apple controls it and you are forbidden to control your iphone.
Stallman doesn't have the myopia that you think he has. He knows fully well that wide world uses proprietary software and people are happy with their choice of software. What he's doing is to teach society that a life of proprietary software means that we live subject to the will of other people. Stallman cannot (and does not) force people to dump proprietary software. He teaches what he knows and hopes that some people will agree that self-control and social solidarity are things worth advocating.
I must second that. I have actually met RMS face to face over a period of several days more than 14 years ago now. We've had email contact on and off ever since as I have worked on various free software projects, especially where I had ethical questions. To give an example I wondered whether I should include software such as lame in a distro I was maintaining. As I was in a country where software patents aren't legal I had no restrictions preventing me - but I worried it could make the fully free distro I was working on inaccessible to others, so I asked his opinion. For the record it was: "Include them, don't let the publishers have more power than they do by obeying bad laws my country has that yours doesn't".
I must agree - I have always found him reasonable, measured and incredible rational about all things.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
I think those kinds of whimsical discussions of a post-scarcity society are the kind of thing you might expect to hear in the MIT AI lab in the 1980s, which is where RMS was working at the time he wrote the GNU Manifesto. I've been volunteering for or working with the FSF for over a decade now and I have never been part of serious convesations in which we discussed preparing for a post-scarcity society or repairing robots. I kind of wish we did. We are always focused on the short term and practical goals that matter today or this year. It is kind of grinding. So, it is refreshing to lighten up a bit and think in terms of how the work we are doing today might be helpful to the **very** long term goals of humanity, even if it is just whimiscal conjecture and for fun.