Slashdot Mirror
Interviews: Ask Richard Stallman a Question
RMS founded the GNU Project, the Free Software Foundation, and remains one of the most important and outspoken advocates for software freedom. He now spends much of his time fighting excessive extension of copyright laws, digital restrictions management, and software patents. RMS has agreed to answer your questions about GNU/Linux, how GNU relates to Linux the kernel, free software, why he disagrees with the idea of open source, and other issues of public concern. As usual, ask as many as you'd like, but please, one question per post.
All anybody really wants to know: AdBlock or HOSTS file?
Why don't you like the term open source?
I found your piece on selling free software to be pretty logical on paper. However, has it ever worked in the wild? Can you name companies or revenues that currently operate on this idea (and I'm not talking about services or support of the software)? I simply can't come up with a widely used monetized piece of software licensed under the GNU GPL whereby the original software was sold at a single price and shipped with the source code -- free for the original purchaser to distribute by the license's clauses. Can you list any revenue generation from that? I must admit I'm not exactly enamored with paying for free software (as in your definition of free) before it's written yet I cannot think of any other way this would fairly compensate the developer.
My work here is dung.
What do you see as the next big issue coming up with software licensing that isn't addressed with the existing GPL and AGPL licenses?
MidnightBSD: The BSD for Everyone
Mr. Stallman, your GNU Project seems to have the momentum of a runaway freight train. Why is it so popular?
Mr. Stallman. Firstly thank you for all your many amazing and brilliant contribution. The list is long so let me leave it there.
I'd be very grateful if you could answer my question: What changes are necessary to make a smartphone truly secure?
A 'singular oddity' is an event that cannot be explained and only happens when you are alone.
A lot of GNU applications are used in bundle with the Linux kernel. GNU Hurd kernel has no wide user base. What do you think about that? What are the future plans?
My biggest concern in this day and age is the dumbing down and comercialization of computing. What used to be open, interoperable programs has now turned into ad based, closed apps. We've gone from having something like Pidgin being able to run all instant messaging clients ad free to now having to download a separate app for every messager, for example (no one uses the older ones anymore, or they've been shut down). Also, open standards like email have been falling out of favour due to corporate pushes to lock down users into walled gardens like Facebook. Of course there's always the option of not using these closed source apps, but it really hinders your social life. Also, programs (now called "apps") are designed to milk the users for money, rather than to benefit the users, as you know is the case with things like " defective by design" DRM.
Is there any way computing can truly become open and user centric again, or do you think it's truly a lost cause? If so, how can we do it without losing connection with the rest of the world who will not give up their FB/WhatsApp/Kik (and don't answer their phone or emails anymore)?
Free software sometimes carries limitations: the program might not be as featureful as a proprietary counterpart. The proprietary software might give me more freedom in the sense of getting my actual task done in the best way possible. Maybe it has better toolset to allow expressing myself artistically more freely, or maybe it has better hardware support so I have more freedom to choose among various hardware devices. Have you thought about freedom from this perspective?
Hi RMS,
What are your favorite books? What is the recent book you read and liked ? Is there any book you think every programmer must read ?
Thanks
Neutrino Kitten
The GPL is a unique license and as such spawns a unique form of piracy, that is corporations wrangling it in as a solution for something and then selling it out and out as their product, or parts therein. Is there a way to prevent or enforce that ?
nd are they ever tested in the wild? How do small companies expect to grow writing free software without investment from big companies who seek proprietary softwares? How do companies expect to profit with all their code published in public?
I am a software developer for a large software company working on a large proprietary (read: not free) OS. How can I achieve forgiveness for my sins in this life?
In your opinion, how can a government strike a fair balance between privacy and snooping powers?
Given that the government needs to be able to spy on potentially dangerous people and groups and such desires have grown legs, wings and multiple heads over the years...
A 'singular oddity' is an event that cannot be explained and only happens when you are alone.
Time and time again I see news articles that seem to herald the idea that users are willing to sacrifice something like privacy for the use of software. Take Facebook for an example. You get a robust and snappy storage and website for communication at the cost of control over your life and privacy. And as I try to explain to people the tradeoffs most of them seem to be complacent. Even I myself use GMail, there's just no better mail service. Even if there were, I'd have to run the server from my home to be sure that I'm in control in it and it's truly free (by your definition). So given that much of the populace isn't even prepared technologically to harness truly free software, don't you think they have slowly accepted the trade offs and that the pros of your arguments -- though sound -- are only possibly realized by those skilled enough to edit source code or host their own mail server from their home?
My work here is dung.
The Gnu Free Documentation Licence (GFDL) has not been embraced with nearly as much love as the GPL and numerous issues have been raised:
*Non compability with GPL (both ways).
*Non-freeness (as deemed by Debian) of invariant sections.
*Cumersomeness of having to print the full licence when distributing physical printouts.
Etc.
Wikipedia for example does not accept contributions licenced under the GFDL only.
What do you see as a way forward in adressing the issues raised regarding the GFDL?
The GNU project seems to be progressing rather slowly, particularly GCC and the GNU HURD system. Where are your priorities?
Do you really sleep with a katana in case you have to fight off ninjas in the middle of the night?
How do you see education (CS) fit in achieving FSF goals? What involvement does FSF have with the current CS curriculum to further free software? (As we have seen both Google, MS, and Facebook are getting involved in education, how is FSF doing in this regard to further the free software movement).
What's the status on HURD? Is the amount of time you're spending correcting people on what semantics they use to refer to FLOSS, GNU/Linux, etc interfering with progress on that project?
I read some years ago, that you do NOT use a mobile phone as they could be used to track you and hence invade privacy. Similarly I recall you being against usage of cloud based email services like Gmail. Has that opinion of yours changed? Do you use a phone or have a Gmail account now? I understand the importance of privacy but these seem little over the top for average joe like me that is not a celebrity. A man's right to privacy should be honored but at what cost/convenience? Could you please explain if these extreme measures are really necessary?
Is there any presidential candidate that you feel is worth supporting?
Be seeing you...
It seems like Microsoft is starting to contribute more to open source products. What's your take on them joining the community, given their rather different approach in historical times?
Do you think it necessary or prudent to compile all software from source, since the binaries could have secret back doors from the NSA or others?
I always assumed he was like Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. I figured you would know the truth.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
Hi RMS,
Firstly I am fan of what you've done and what you have given the world. I also asked you a weakly related quesion about two decades ago when I was a teenager and didn't realise one shouldn't just email random well known people on the internet. You were kind enough to take the time to write a thoughtful reply.
The question is about subversion of Free software via a stable API. If a stable API exists in some popular library/piece of software, it is possible to write a shim layer, where the GPL shim serialises the interaction then sends that to a non-free component[*]. The non-free component of course has the interesting and useful logic. Since it's not linking to the Free part, then it's not covered by the GPL.
Via such a mechanism, one could use a significant GPL component in a non-free program. Naturally this is very much at odds with the spirit of the GPL, but not the letter. From what I recall, you explicitly warned about this sort of thing when GCC were creating an API for interacting with external tools. GCC being arguably the leading compiler in the world[1], would be prone to such subversion.
I believe your suggestion at the time was to essentially neuter the plugin API so that there was nothing left to subvert. Naturally though that comes with downsides is that it also makes it harder for the Free software community to work with GCC. GCC did eventually decide to go with the plugin API.
Do you still think that not having an API would have been the right choice? If so, what to you think the relative tradeoff is between making Free software better and as a side effect making it easier for non-free software development? If not, what made you change your mind? Either way, where do you draw the line---gcc always could be used to compile non-free software and of course making GCC better makes such things easier.
It also seems that GCC went with the plugin interface because they believed that the improvement to the usability of GCC was worth it relative to the risks. Do you think it's possible in theory to have flexible plugin interfaces without openning the door to non-free software, such as some hypothetical license change?
Thankyou for your time :)
[*] related: if one has two libraries offering identical APIs such as the various libcs, then it's hard to argue that something using libc is a derived work of a particular implementation. Especially if it's dynamically linked it could easily pick up any number of several different compatible ones. The concept of derived work is what gives the GPL and indeed all of copyright its teeth.
[1] To anyone who wants to argue that LLVM or Intel CC or etc is better please don't. GCC is arguable the best in that I and others could make reasonable arguments for that case. It's not provably the best.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
You or Linus Van Pelt? I figured you could finally answer America's Greatest Riddle.
It's long been possible to run entirely free software on a PC, but the world of game consoles has been a proprietary hellscape for many years.
In recent years there's been an attempt to open it up in some very modest ways, mainly through the proliferation of Android "microconsoles" and other Android-based set top boxes.
Do you find these new developments to be a step in the right direction and are you worried as I am that they're not catching on very well?
You're right, I wouldn't steal a car. But if it were possible, I sure as hell would download one!
What are the best ways to circumvent censorship? In other words, How can we make the *Internet* indelible and unblockable by our most vulnerable single point of failure, the ISP, which invariably acts as an agent of the state?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
I am someone who does not like the direction systemd goes in, as it replaces much of what I would call GNU/Linux (syslog,fstab,init.d,...etc) - I am not asking whether that point of view is correct. Assuming that it is, it seems to me that the scope and interconnectedness of the systemd changes is too much for any smaller organization to resist. The possibility of maintaining an ongoing form of GNU/Linux that still stays current seems to be an overwhelming task, although some (Devuan etc) are heroically attempting to do so.
Can the sheer complexity of a GNU/Linux distro like RedHat make it impossible to practically maintain a version with different technologies?
01 May 2015 (Bernie Sanders running for president)
Bernie Sanders is running for president.
He's going to have my vote.
In fact if you go right to stallman.org it's current front and center at the top.
My work here is dung.
Why are you so negative in the freedom dimension?
My understanding is that you studied physics as an undergrad and early grad student. I'm curious if there was a particular area of physics you were interested in at the time, and do you still keep up with new developments in physics, the sciences, or other fields of academia?
I teach CS at a university, often including introductory courses. Regarding FOSS, what message(s) is/are the most vital to communicate to people who are writing computer programs for the first time?
As a short preface, I am an amateur video game creator, who's made nothing of note. Video games are pieces of software like any other, but intended for entertainment instead of productivity. I guess my question is, what is your opinion on video games in the realm of free software? How important is software freedom when software isn't intended for doing work? And finally, thank you Mr. Stallman for your contributions to the software community, and thank you for taking the time to answer our questions.
are any of your answers different than the last 3 times?
http://interviews.slashdot.org...
http://features.slashdot.org/s...
http://interviews.slashdot.org...
It's not like his position is going to change significantly on anything...
I don't see the point.
Why is it okay to support Emacs on windows, but not okay to support a BSD licensed debugger(LLVM)?
GPL = open source
BSD = free software
He should be embracing the term "open source." I suspect it's simple NIH syndrome. He didn't come up with the term "open source."
Is the LLVM project a greater threat to GNU/Linux than Windows or Mac OS X?
With the announcement that slashdot was up for sale some people obviously jumped to the idea of crowdfunding the purchase somehow. I struggle however to think of any entity who could reasonably collect that money and go on to "do the right thing" in terms of running the site for it's own sake rather then for profit. Can you think of any potential new owners who would be worth trusting? Would the FSF take it?
I was wandering what are your thoughts on non-useful pieces of software, such as games. Specifically, DOS and Amiga era old games, which provide a sense of nostalgia for me. Assuming I am playing them on a free software emulator in a sandbox environment, so the potential malicious features can't hurt me, do you think it is still bad? I wouldn't want to modify them anyway, since I want to play them exactly as they ware during my childhood. Any advice?
They have soap and water everywhere there are computers. What is your excuse for looking like such a vagrant?
If I give you a free beer will you show me your sword?
In your own archives on stallman.org, you state that "Prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia should be legal as long as no one is coerced. They are illegal only because of prejudice and narrowmindedness."
Have your views changed in the past nine years? If so, why? If not, can you provide a more nuanced view as to why pedophilia, even non-coerced pedophilia, is acceptable?
How do your ideas about Freedom extend to other, non-software areas? For example, many people like to engage in bondage in the bedroom (as evidenced by the massive recent popularity of 50 Shades of Grey.). Bondage typically involves a person voluntarily allowing another person to restrict their freedom and exert some control over them. Is this unethical?
I ask because you believe that it is unethical for a customer to be sold a software license by a proprietary software owner, yet it would seem to me that in both situations 1) both parties consent, and 2) one party has their freedom restricted by giving power to another. Thus, if one is unethical why wouldn't the other be?
Already using it
Yes, as soon as possible
Yes, in a few weeks/months
Yes, when the bugs are worked out
I'm undecided
Only if I'm forced to
Never
When CowboyNeal switche
In between the horns of the GNU picture is that a vagina?!?
I know you don't like Software as a Service: article
However, there are some web applications that really only work as a web application. Slashdot is an example of this.
Do you feel that creators of web applications should be obliged to make their source code available?
Also, if I am employed as web application developer, am I a bad person?
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free
With so much moving to mobile devices and applications I wonder about the state of open source on those platforms and how developers can make a living while writing open source mobile apps.
The ads and sales that most mobile apps use to generate revenue aren't really an option for open source apps. Does that mean developers have to rely on a donations or are there other ways they can fund their work?
I stole this Sig
Have you ever mourned the loss of good commercial software that lost out to free, and crappy open source software?
You have been working for the freedom of software users for at least some thirty odd years now. Do you think that (maybe because of your work) that freedom has improved, or that it has stayed the same or has deteriorated? To me it seems to have deteriorated and I am wondering where you get the energy to keep on fighting.
Wenn ist das Nunstueck git und Slotermeyer? Ja! Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput.
Mr. Stallman, first I must thank you for The GNU Project, the gift the world doesn't yet appreciate. In a fifty years there will be a statue commemorating your achievement of preventing computers thirty years ago from becoming like iPhones are today. If there isn't I'll have to commission it myself. Thank you for buying us all this time to prevent 1984.
What I'd like to ask is whether you are concerned about how popular and business media conflate Silicon Valley start-ups and Apps with technology and software as a whole. As we all know, the internet has existed since long before MySpace and terms like "bloggers", "new media", "social networking", "big data", etc.
The cover of this week's Economist has a map, shaped like a brain, of various corporate entities which are dominating and strangling the web, entitled "Empire of the Geeks". Corporatization of web is killing communities as users become commodities to be sold to advertisers, or mined for valuable personal information. Users are thus taken for granted. For instance, Reddit is the only web-forum I've used that has a "Board of Directors" and a CEO, and I can't fathom how anybody can keep a straight face while contemplating such an absurdity.
The article in the Economist promises the tech-ignorant readership that, unlike 2000, there will be no web-bubble because start-ups are typically not purchased without demonstrating a potential to generate profit.
What all these suits seem to be missing is that Free Software exists, as a giant exit door, that could evacuate a large fraction, if not majority, from the surveilled, corporate web in a matter of months into a reactionary darknet built on, perhaps, webs of trust. The ephemeral and limitless nature of software, the virility of memes, the availability of encryption, and the well-established short-lifespan of internet communities all suggest that the current Facebook/Twitter empire is founded on sand.
Which is the likelier possibility: Tech-dumb investors are being fleeced by Silicon Valley which is well aware the clock is ticking on the current hegemony of monied websites? Or that the days of the free internet itself themselves numbered, and soon users will be shepherded into a locked-down, Compuservesque network which preempts the possibility of communicating online without using approved channels?
In either possibility, why is this not talked about more? All Free Software needs, at this point, is a Steve Jobs to bring our superior software ecosystem to the masses, and sell users on the benefits of direct, peer to peer communication omitting corporate in-betweeners. I am sure that day is coming, what clues have you seen in your long-time involvement in the software world which might affirm or relieve my concerns? Because either way, the information economy is in for a shock I don't think it is prepared for, and the results could be devastating.
Silicon & Charybdis McLuhan Kildall Papert Kay
Some time ago, it came to light that it is not currently possible to build a 100% static binary using glibc.
In a world where it is taken for granted that three-letter agencies routinely diddle software, and thus it can be assumed that any number of a user's own libraries have been diddled, what are the implications of the gradual erosion of the ability to get a computer to actually do what you want it to do?
What is your opinion / thoughts on IPV6?
Is that a trick question?
yes.
Why do you insist on calling all Linux distros GNU/Linux, when you know very well the they are trademarked by 2 completely different organizations?
GNU is trademarked by your FSF and Linux is trademarked by the Linux Foundation, to the only distros that GNU/Linux is technically appropriate for are ones provided by the FSF, it seems like all others would need to get permission to actually use GNU as part of the Linux brand and actually work with the FSF on that license agreement.
Or is it the policy of the FSF to allow anybody to use the GNU trademark as part of their brand, even software bundling non-Free software, so long as that system is dependent on GNU software, (And of course adhering appropriately to the GPL)?
If I recall correctly, at some point when talking about GPU firmwares, you implied that it is more "free" to have a proprietary firmware burned into a ROM than it is to have a proprietary firmware that can be re-flashed. But having a firmware that can be flashed provides the user with the freedom to flash a truly free firmware, either built from the ground up or reverse-engineered from the original. How is having firmware in a ROM any better from a practical or freedom standpoint?
We've read in the news about how prominently mozilla has integrated pocket into its web browser. This isn't the only change into the "closed service" direction they've made. On the other hand, they keep fighting at many fronts for the open web. What is your opinion on what mozilla stood for once, what it is today, and what it is becoming?
As a lisp user, what do you think of functional languages like Haskell and their increasing popularity?
Going forward, what do you believe is the relevance of GNU?
-- I was raised on the command line, bitch
Will Hurd ever be released, or is the microkernel concept so hopelessly flawed that the project has been given up on?
I realize with Linux it's no longer a high priority, but is it going anywhere at all?
Dear Richard,
first and foremost thank you for contributions and activism, you have made the world a better place for the likes of us. Now for the question:
What are your views on the future of the FSF?
Today's software landscape and dangers to freedom seem quite far from the initial days of the FSF, and with that, its purpose and effectiveness seem less relevant today.
Even giants like Microsoft have seen their dominance shattered, and are facing the dilemma of a radical overhaul vs obsolescence.
Do you feel that FSF organization and goals should be radically shaken? How can we better fight for freedom in these strangely connected days?
"Time and time again I see news articles that seem to herald the idea that users are willing to sacrifice something like privacy for the use of software. "
It has nothing to do with complacency, complacency describes "Freedom". The fact is the human mind didn't evolve to live in this kind of society and so it makes 'stupid' decisions, aka takes the path of least energy expenditure.
Many people are overworked and exhausted, to have a society which can defend itself from corporate predation needs to be radically reorganized so that you have the funds and time off to defend yourself from these predatory attacks, aka taking years off to solve the accumulated corruption by business on the government and law. But the powers that be would find that threatening to their profits, hence the problem.
The Free Software movement and the Open Source community have done great things. I have an excellent development system that runs entirely Free Software, for example. Nobody need pay for an OS or write their own. With a few exceptions, it's generally accepted that, if you're going to introduce a new computer language or framework, you need to provide at least a free-as-in-beer implementation with source available (and at that point going to free-as-in-speech is a minor jump).
What do you think are some of the next big things that Free Software is going to accomplish? In 2025, what will I be thinking are some recent major effects of the movement?
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Hi RMS,
My question is about the name "Free Software". I find that many people I speak to have difficulties understanding the significance of those words: i.e. "free" as in political freedom, self agency, liberty etc.
I would say "Open Source" is easier to understand as words, but you've often emphasised that it doesn't capture the full scope of the freedom in Free Software - I agree with that. I think a lot of people say "Open Source" - not because they deny the importance of the freedom, but just because non-technical people think they mean "Freeware" or "Shareware". This is annoying, because I'm always telling people to choose Free Software, but I have to say "you should make sure you get Free/Open Source Software" or some such cumbersome terminology just to get them to understand me.
Do you recognise the problem of terminology that I'm referring to? Have you ever thought about describing "Free Software" with any other titles? "Freedom Software", "Libre Software" or such? Other titles such as these - do you regard them as defective? If you had your time again would you chose a different title to aid understanding? If not, what would you say is the unique importance of the label "Free Sofware" over any other possible labels?
Thanks
Joel
At one point, with some obvious exceptions the most used Free Software came out of the Gnu Project and Linux, and all of that was copylefted. Nowadays, it looks like we've got a lot more high quality Free Software that isn't copylefted (I'll use LLVM as an example here).
How do you feel about the copyleft vs. permissive licensing going on today? How do you think it will change in the future?
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Dear Richard
My question is about the name "Free Software". I find that many people I speak to have difficulties understanding the significance of those words: i.e. "free" as in political freedom, self agency, liberty etc.
I would say "Open Source" is easier to understand as words, but you've often emphasised that it doesn't capture the full scope of the freedom in Free Software - I agree with that. I think a lot of people say "Open Source" - not because they deny the importance of the freedom, but just because non-technical people think they mean "Freeware" or "Shareware". This is annoying, because I'm always telling people to choose Free Software, but I have to say "you should make sure you get Free/Open Source Software" or some such cumbersome terminology just to get them to understand me.
Do you recognise the problem of terminology that I'm referring to? Have you ever thought about describing "Free Software" with any other titles? "Freedom Software", "Libre Software" or such? Other titles such as these - do you regard them as defective? If you had your time again would you chose a different title to aid understanding? If not, what would you say is the unique importance of the label "Free Sofware" over any other possible labels?
Thanks
Joel
The The Free Software Definition states as one of the "four essential freedoms": "The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this." (bold mine)
Let's say I gave somebody a car out of charity, but I didn't give them the owner's manual. Are they now less free because they will have a harder time fixing the car than before I gave them the car? If I was compelled to give the person the owner's manual with the car, or not give the car at all, am I not less free?
My point is this. The Free Software Definition conflates freedom with capability, and does so at the cost of what freedom really means. It's nice for propaganda purposes, but it's Orwellian in nature.
It could be argued honestly that in the name of consumer protection we limit freedoms for the greater good, such as requiring a list of ingredients in packaged food. However, it would be dishonest to argue for such laws in the name of "freedom".
I often enjoy my freedom to study program's “source code” by diving through its history. There seems to be no no authoritative source for GCC releases between 0.9 beta and gcc-1.35 (except a gcc-1.30.atari). Where did it go?
Third, and most likely option; he doesn't wipe.
Yes, Free(ish) Software existed prior to RMS, one of the most popular varieties was called shareware, and it exists to this day.
The problem was simple: If you shared the source, you had a community and could build things larger than one developer could maintain alone. But if you shared the source and it was a smash hit, a company would make minor tweaks and sell it in binary form and not share any of the improvements back to the community that did the bulk of the work. The GPL fixed this and made a massive collaboration like Linux possible. Without it any company could take it and throw money at it until they themselves became the standard distribution, at which time they could start ratcheting up the price.
As for the phone thing, there's a huge software stack inside the phone, and a pile of binary blobs to make the radios work. No one should trust their privacy on such devices. That said, I think RMS should carry one in his right pocket, and the battery in his left pocket until he wants make a call or check his e-mail.
If they made a movie about the history of Free Software and/or GNU and Linux, who do you think should play you?
I think Steve Carell could do it if you stuck a big beard and wig on him... :)
Richard, have you ever heard of the 5th freedom? The freedom from hassle?
What's your position on this fad of appliances needing networking and whatnot other connections? Especially in the light of other devices (like routers) usually running something that used to be free software 'til the appliance maker got their hands onto it. It is likely that some if not many or even the majority of IoT appliances will run (allegedly) free software in one way or another, and most likely without any regard of the underlying licensing model.
Would you rather see it as a vehicle for OSS to move into everyone's home and literally become a household thing, or is it just yet another abuse of free software by makers of appliances who just like to cut corners?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The overall impression I have of the recent relative popularity of open source licenses is that copyleft has faced a steady barrage of criticism from people favouring a BSD/MIT approach. Copyleft seems to be losing a bit of ground lately. Is my impression wrong? How can the FSF and other people who see the benefits of copyleft do a better job of explaining its benefits, and a better job of refuting some of the criticism coming from BSD/MIT advocates?
Yes, we do need to ask RMS some questions. I mean, he is normally so reticent about expressing his views, this is the only way we will find out.
Dear Richard.
I noticed that the Free Software Community is in constant conflict because you promote that close/privative/propietary software is unethical and free software is ethical.
Since being ethical is a more a personal definition that changes from person to person and varies in different countries, it produces conflict on your community since members feels superior to others for the simple fact of using free software.
In other words, because you promote that free software is used by the good guys, your community members treat like inferior or bad guys to the people that uses close/privative/propietary software.
Do you really think it has to be that way? Do you think people are good and ethical just because they use free software?
Regards
My question concerns the current fad of networking everything AKA "The Internet of (every)Thing/s". I'm not going to bug you with TFH-ish crap like the constant irradiation of the air all around us 24/7, that shit gets old really fast and debates on it go nowhere.
Are you concerned about what appears to be being overlooked, that being the security of information such things as digital thermostats and timers (like Hive), GDOs, water and power meters, larder fridges, cookers, TiVO and smart TVs, etc., transmit over the air on an almost continuous basis via wifi and/or Bluetooth, and cell networks (in the case of Hive)?
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
You're unlikely to get the answer you seek because you've framed your question in terms of a movement Stallman is (rightly) opposed to, and in ways that he's already explained many times (even the /. summary points to one of the essays on this) -- why Stallman objects to the open source movement (older essay, newer essay also pointed to in the /. summary). He recommends against using Facebook (and has started every talk in the past year or so with an explanation of why posting pictures of people in Facebook/Instagram is a bad idea). I hope he will point out to you that you don't need these things to avoid "losing connection with the rest of the world" and you should value things the open source movement was designed to never talk about, and privacy these services are designed to deny every user of the web. One can hardly "benefit the users" while advocating against copyleft (as the open source movement does), never talking about software freedom (as the open source movement was designed to do), and maintaining a monstrous search engine (as is at the heart of Facebook). You could have done the slightest bit of research and found any of these things I pointed to.
Digital Citizen
Hi RMS!
There's been a huge amount of success with crowdfunding recently -- Kickstarter and Indigogo and so on.The most facile projects can get funded to the tune of millions. Meanwhile venerable old free software projects have been neglected. Has the FSF ever considered starting some crowdfunded projects?
I know people can donate cash to e.g. the FSF directly but it's a black box and hard to emotionally engage with that. Compare for example a specific project that could gain a lot of public momentum -- e.g. a Kickstarter project with a specific goal to increase Emacs' IDE capabilities by paying some extra developers to work on it full time. I'd happily donate some cash in that direction if someone were to launch such a project.
Surely worth an experiment at least? Please take my money :)
The FSF has made a stand against binary-only firmware. But isn't binary-only firmware files, provided they can be freely redistributed, better than firmware that is burnt into the ROM of a device?
Same question. But I think this is a better title since I forgot that software can also be "hardcoded".
What are your thoughts on the topic of so-called "open governance" as applied to Free Software projects? To my own cynical eye it appears to be a ploy to let non-contributors boss the contributors around on some hoity-toity principle and a popularity contest.
The in-development Neo900 smartphone, whilst it doesn't have the latest and greatest hardware specs, is specifically being built to make it harder to do this crap. Option of going 100% FOSS on the main ARM processor with the exception of some userspace blobs for the PowerVR GPU (at least that is the intention) plus a hardware architecture that prevents the closed parts of the system (WiFi, cellular radio etc) from having access to the other hardware (there is no way to for the cellular module to have any access to the microphone, speakers or the memory or flash/filesystem of the main processor at all)
No walled garden (since its 100% FOSS there is no control by anyone other than the user), not trying to sell you apps (no app store means no apps to sell) and no spying or tracking (unless you happen to install something that does spying or tracking)
Is the Neo900 for everyone? No. But if you want a phone that genuinely gives YOU the user the control, the Neo900 is the only device out there that can really do it... (and although not everyone likes binary blobs, the nature of the Neo900 means that if someone does produce a FOSS driver for the PowerVR stuff, it can be use on the Neo900 no problems)
Lots in our community want to be able to purchases devices that have all the source code available.
The FSF itself has championed 100% free OS's, and also tried to promote hardware devices that protect users freedom.
If there is binary blobs on a device then whoever controls the blobs has power over "good" developers and their users. The fewer binary blobs the more concentrated that power becomes, and therefore becomes harder to eliminate.
This is becoming more of a problem as software gets distributed in an aggregated form (firmware, images) rather than as individual components.
The GPL says "mere aggregation" of copyleft software with binary blobs is ok, is it still ok ?
Is it time for a new license that articulates the wishes of those who want 100% free software ?
Mr. Stallman, I just want to be clear on one point. In your opinion, is open source software a good thing or a bad thing. Feel free to elaborate on your answer.
What do you think about people releasing software with no license, and no copyright? I know that you are against the very idea of copyright, and that GPL is your "fix" for the system. These days, many people publish by pushing their code to places like github. Some projects have no copyright notice on them at all. In a world where copyright exists, what are the ramifications of this, for the user, for the developer, for the corporation?
Do you have any suggestions for popularizing Free Software with consumers in this age where we are moving toward software and hardware being even more tightly integrated in devices such as smartphones, DVRs, tablets, watches, etc...?
To clarify further, I understand the issues with locked-down and proprietary hardware & software in so many consumer products but simply informing people of those issues is not enough. To sway people we need functionally (and ultimately aesthetically but that can come later) comparable Free Software -based products with the matching adequate user experiences that they have come to expect from the proprietary vendors. To go mainstream, those freedoms need to be a value-add to a good product, not the key feature of the product.
With four years' hindsight, and with what you know today, would you have boycotted Israeli academic institutions like you did at 2011? And why? By the way, one of the universities, which you boycotted at the time, is Haifa University, in which the percentage of Arab students among its student body is about 20% - similar to their percentage in the general population of Israel.
Which Linux Distribution in your opinion adheres best to the free software vs open source paradigm based on the current
state of things rather than historically speaking?
You know that even though things you say sometimes seem extreme that in the bigger picture they are 100% right, right?
you disgust me.
This is going better than I expected. Nobody is sacred at /. - nobody. Except that Bill Gates guy, he is cool and doesn't afeared of anything.
No, really, I made it this far reading it. I expected it to devolve into a systemd rant by now. I knew the rest of the questions, toe jam and bathing, would be there. We are, after all, assholes.
Anyhow, does RMS see any good things happening soon with the release of Windows 10 being decried as strongly as it is? Could it finally be the year of Linux on the desktop? (I know, that is two questions - put an AND in there. I did not want a run-on sentence.)
The majority of the posts here boil down to one simple fact:
The commercial - proprietary - mass market product or service is more appealing and accessible than anything the geek has to offer.
hi richard, why do you hate the mit/bsd licence? it just makes software more free than you would like or write
One of the reasons you giving for choosing to produce a free clone of UNIX in 1983 was that UNIX had a modular design. However MSDOS also had a modular structure (inspired by UNIX) and was a far more popular operating system in 1983 than Unix. Did you ever give consideration to producing a GNU DOS back in 1983, why did you decide not to do so?
I have seen this guy talk several times and every time he is a giant douche if you have any questions that even seem to remotely question his statements. Even something as simple as how do you propose we execute on your position?
So my question is why do you have to be such a douche all the time? You harm your own position and that of others by not being able to answer questions in constructive ways or provide even a rough outline of how to get from where we are now to where you suggest we should be.
A lot of the virtual world relies on ( somewhat hidden from end users ) layers of trust. We trust that some obscure agency is running the DNS root servers properly, we trust random SSL root certificates on our box preinstalls, we trust that a library called OpenSSL is reviewed by many smart people, we trust Amazon reviews, we trust a random package in NodeJS ir Debian repo to do what it claims etc.
In real world, trust is not a fixed, frozen in time notion, is never a binary true/false value. Moxie Marlinspike wrote in his proposal about replacing SSL PKi about the notion of "trust agility", but the issues are more complicated and apply in many other domains than just securing web traffic.
What are your thoughts on this? Does free software inherently bring something to the table here, or is it an orthogonal thing? Who should own the " root keys" to the internet?
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slashdot.org Errors found while checking this document as HTML5!
Let me preface this by saying that I am an avid Free Software and GNU Linux supporter and user and am very appreciative and grateful for RMS's contributions, directly to my benefit.
Q: It seems to me as an outside observer, that you have struck on this golden idea of Free Software and the 'rights' of the user and started a potent movement. How have your ideas changed over time? I say this because I've seen some interviews and when they stray outside of a narrow band directly related to Free Software, they become slightly less insightful. For example in the patent space, it seems you've come up with arbitrary proposals and while they are an improvement, they are incompatible with my views in favor of voluntarism (which makes all government immoral).
Also I've never heard an explanation of the 'rights' in so much as what are they? Are they 'God given rights'? Are they 'natural rights' by some law of information science? Are they negotiated by us as individuals? Most importantly, are they moral? What is morality?
Maybe you see where I'm going with this. The success of the Free Software Phenomenon (FSP) could be according to many (eg. Linus Torvalds) just a matter of practicality. He sticks with GPL2 because it is more practical. He doesn't like GPL3 because it's not what he 'wants' from a software license.
I'm starting to think that the preponderance of the evidence shows that the FSP is deeper than just convenience. Can you do the work philosophically to break it down to first principles and relate it to what is good, moral, ethical?
I might be asking too much, some people spend considerable time in philosophical learning to be able to give great answers to simple questions such as what is good and what is virtue. Not to mention that it may be impossible to provide good answers without someone like Richard Dawkins in the room to help with the scientific portion of the discussion.
To me this is all one topic of exploration (question).
Finally, just know that you have my profound thanks for helping to change the world for the better.
Liberty.
Most of your advocacy is sloganeering against a whole range of software/tools/standards/sites - don't use Adobe Flash, don't use iBad, don't use TiVo, don't use FaceBook, don't use this, don't use that....
Instead, why doesn't the FSF/GNU project come out w/ products that are real alternatives to all the myriad list of things that you do not want people to use? So that you can have a positive alternative to offer to people, other than just ask them to follow your whims?
Come on. We did that last year and the year before! I love what stallman stands for, but this is getting stale!
http://features.slashdot.org/s...
http://interviews.slashdot.org...
Artificial intelligence, if it is ever achieved, is likely to be based largely on software. What implications to you foresee for the role of Free software in artificial intelligence?
I thought that's well known. gNewSense. Or has that changed?
Did you consider moving to New Hampshire?
Don't you realize that's the whole point of the GNU/FSF movement?
You cannot code a Facebook alternative in a single afternoon
Mr Stallman, what is your view on digital currencies? Are they a part of the battle for freedoms, do they align with your vision and views, and if so, how?
Exactly! Please this is a very pertinent question in the current age of changing personal computing to be across multiple devices not just a desktop computer. Free Software is supposed to be innovative and advanced but it seems the Free Software solution is a slow follower to the proprietary products.
Flash for example was there to augment the limited capabilities of the web, why didn't Free Software offer a solution to that?
Office suites? It wasn't until Sun gave away their proprietary product as Free Software that there was anything at all.
Java? Again there was no Free Software innovation there and it was only on Sun's deathbed that it released that proprietary platform.
What about a Free social networking platform? Yet another late, also-ran.
Javascript? There's big diatribe called "The Javascript Trap" which wouldn't have even been necessary if Free Software had innovated in that space first.
Even GNU/Linux, successful as it has been, copied UNIX and is more an exception than a rule for Free Software
Didn't like TiVo? Why didn't Free Software get to that market first?
It's the same story with smartphones, tablets, smartwatches, VR devices, AR devices like Hololens, etc.
Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of Free Software but Im just not sure it can actually deliver, the FSF seems to be more concerned with pointing out flaws in existing things than it does coming up with solutions.
I have been unable to convince family and friends of the dangers posed by mass surveilance and data collection. The most effective angle I have attempted so far was inspired by comedian and social commentator John Oliver, who employs a visceral anecdote of government agents being able to view citizens' nude photos sent by email. Even so, not one of my family members or friends has actually installed GnuPG, through Enigmail or otherwise.
Do knowledgeable people currently spend proper effort in relating important issues to everyday folks? Should organizations like the Free Software Foundation direct more resources towards reaching people who would otherwise show little interest in higher ideals and how they relate to computers?
Thank you for sharing your dedication and unwavering principles with the world. You are my hero.
I've seen a tendency where programs that started out with the mindset of doing a single thing and doing it well gets expanded with new features and over time grows into bloatware. (And inevitably someone then starts a lightweight competitor to the program than then later on suffers the same fate.)
Apart from the gaming industry it seems like there is an inability to finish development, release it and call it done.
Do you think this is something that open source projects might suffer more from since it invites more people to bring in extended visions of the original intent of the software?
Dear Mr. Stallman, currently i see GPL violations all over the place, and nothing happens. Learn effect: The industry can very well get away with GPL-violations. What can be or is being done that the industry takes the GPL seriously?
Richard, don't you think that the shell (bash, ash, dash, csh, zsh etc) is way outdated and conceptually wrong. Even simple things require external binaries like tr and print. VMS os had dcl ages ago and it was way more powerful. The syntax of any of the popular shells is a nightmare. What is you opinion on the topic? Would you like to change anything? If so what? Please ignore the fact that there are tons of scripts being used and that the whole universe might depend on them.
What do you think is the best way to automate managing linux/unix boxes? i.e. say you've got hundreds of them and need to control and monitor them all easily.
PS: I don't reply to ACs.
Dear Mr Stallman
It is now 8 years, in fact, a few days past 8 years (if Wikipedia is to be believed) since the final version of the GPL v3 license was published. It feels an appropriate length of time to gauge how successful the new license has been.
How do you think we should measure the success of GPL v3? And by this/these measure/(s), do you believe that GPL v3 has been more, less or just as successful as you hoped when you launched it?
What is your affiliation with and opinion on the Pirate Party movement?
The FSF has taken a very harsh line on Apple considering their setup to offer essentially no freedom. I'll ask about specific claims in a separate question. Apple offers the ability to setup an enterprise server for $300 / yr (not per device) which iOS devices could register against and those devices would then have whatever policies the administrator wants. So for example there could be an open upload area that people could download directly from. Or the provisioning keys could be public and software could be side loaded. Why doesn't the FSF just run an open server and allow iOS devices from across the world to point to this and not the Apple servers?
They do that.
For Flash they produce Gnasha free player
Their anti-Facebook article lists recommend alternatives: GNU social, status.net, Crabgrass, Appleseed and Diaspora.
I don't know what iBad is. As for TiVo they have two problems
a) Software licensing disagreement which they fixed with GPLv3
b) DRM which they can't do much about legally. That's arguably a whole new movement.
I've noticed that many of your claims regarding Apple and DRM in the various posts are simply false and I suspect this applies to other vendors. For example
https://www.fsf.org/news/ibad_...
blocking installation of software that comes from anywhere except the official Application Store -- false there are multiple ways to install software used routinely: developer's installation capabilities, enterprise and academic servers, 3rd party app stores included with cloud MDM agreements...
regulating every use of movies downloaded from iTunes -- I'm not sure if they mean the iTunes application or the iTunes cloud services. If they mean the application that's not true, there is nothing to prevent you from uploading your own movie to the application and downloading to a device. If they mean the cloud service they are distributor and have some responsibility but you can grant Apple permission for unlimited free distribution.
Do you think you should be fact checking your claims so that these don't get repeated and then refuted? How is it helpful for the FSF to word things in ways that lack nuance to the extent that they are just provably false?
I forgot JavaScript - thanks for remembering!!!
On the Free Social Networking, there actually is something called GNU Network. It's not a networking tool but more a Social Networking, sans all the privacy violations, according to GNU. Of course, since its main goal seems to be showcasing AGPL 3, hardly anyone uses it
Yeah, they do have GNASH. But they don't offer an alternative to JavaScript - another thing he rails against. GNU Social is there, but that seems more to showcase the AGPL 3.0 than anything else. iBad is Stallman's name for iPad.
For TiVo, the FSF could simply have come up w/ a DVR box that uses 'Libre-Linux' on a flash device that ain't locked down. Of course, reason they won't is that they know that none of the service providers - Comcast, TWC, Charter, et al would buy it.
I like copyleft, but find the idea of licence incompatibility troubling. Versions of the GPL are dominant for (at least non-server) copyleft software, versions of the CC BY-SA appear to be becoming dominant for copyleft non-software works, and the AGPL seems to be gaining momentum for copyleft server software, but this still leaves three incompatible paths for these different kinds of works.
It seems entirely possible to me that people might want to use non-server code in server software or vice versa, and at least theoretically possible that people might want to use non-software work in software or vice versa (e.g. copying text from a document discussing software design into software comments, or copying software comments into a document discussing software design).
Are you aware of this causing any significant problems, or do you think it could? Do you think it desirable or even possible that a single licence cover all cases?
Mr. Stallman,
Personally, you've been an inspiration to me. I remember writing a report about the GNU Project in eighth grade, which opened my eyes to how big the world of computing really is! I'm going into my senior year of high school now, so college and education have been on my mind a lot lately. What can someone my age do to prepare for the future of programming and computing? If you could go back in time and give yourself some advice, what would that advice be?
First of all, thanks for all of your amazing contributions to free software and free culture movements in general.
I would like to hear your opinion about projects to create free hardware, in particular CPUs like the OpenRISC and RISC-V, or projects striving to create full systems respecting the GPL and without binary blobs like Rhombus Tech's EOMA or lowrisc, or any other that you might know that goes beyond refurbishing existing computers.
In the case that you hold a favourable opinion, I also would like to know if the FSF is in touch (even informally) with any of the teams behind these projects and plan to support them in any way (other than accepting changes to GNU software so it can run in these systems), e.g. by working with them from early on to ensure that they can later be endorsed by Respects Your Freedom.
How has being an activist for so many years surprised you? What have you seen that you never expected?
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
What is you opinion of copyright as a whole and of those who release their works into it via the CC0, Unlicense, or similar?
Are you aware that libreboot is spearheaded by one man who is ~23? He's swamped building the gluglug machines and developing libreboot. Granted, he can piggy-back off of coreboot fairly well, but IMO his project is not getting nearly enough FSF support. FSF approved distributions are somewhat meaningless on top of machines running loads of non-free firmware underneath.
Just as a general question, are you aware about how bad blobs are getting in each intel release? Are you aware that ARM and AMD are following suit?
I want to see more writing on your website about OpenRISC and RISC-V other open hardware. Things aren't beginning to get very bad-- they're there.
Another statement: Please don't stop pushing back against the issues with GCC and extensibility. Coupled with the issues in closed hardware, LLVM poses a grave threat to the freedom of software developers. They WILL develop closed additions to their compiler for new architectures. They WILL lock developers into LLVM and their blob. We WILL have to pay for them. Embedded development is already in the hands of Keil and their compiler instead of gcc-arm.
Thanks for everything you've done for this world, RMS. You've taught me so much.
Dear Mr. Stallman, When hunting for food on your body, what do you think is the: 1. Most productive area? 2. Most flavorful area. 3. Area to definitely avoid? Thanks?
It was mentioned on a podcast (BadVoltage.org) that the GNU Public License 3.0 could modified to allow for all of the serious and somewhat amusing recommendations for those in the GNU/Libre software community to modify and publish as they intended.
Examples would be you cannot run this software unless you have a FSF certified machine etc
or cheese from your toes must be sold on ebay to benefit free software etc.
& anything else in an all-encompassing celebration of the Free-software agreement between users.
My question is: Could the GNUXL License come into being in a way that is a modification of the GNU Public License 3.0 ?
What is your opinion on non-military licenses? (i.e. licenses that are almost FOSS, but prohibit usage for military purposes and thus aren't recognized free software).
I feel like this becomes an issue in recent years, when you look at news like this:
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets...
http://linuxgizmos.com/u-s-mil...
Do you reject those licenses? Or could there even be a GPL-NonMil license at some point?
As we can see, much software is only available as a service (SaaS). Some of the software powering those services is Open Source, some is Free Software, and some is neither. The power in these types of systems is more about the data, and access to the data, than software.
Do you see any licenses that could be created to surround access to data, such as APIs? Perhaps an API could be licensed as Open Access or Free Access, allowing the users to do what they like with the service or data. Granted, the organization providing Free Access could close or simply halt access to the API. Are there licensing mechanisms developers can use today to grant their users better access to their user-supplied data?
Your trinity is entirely correct, so what is the business case for open source software? Clearly there is one: even Microsoft is getting in on the game.
Your examples of Linux software are a bit off base. In Debian's most popular packages, you have to go down to #259 to get to x11-common, and the first actual graphical program (iceweasel) comes in at #657. I understand that you're a desktop user and your business involves selling desktops, but I do wish that you would get past your myopic focus. Linux is a server OS, a development platform, an embedded and supercomputing platform, and while it can be used as a Desktop OS, there's really not much business interest in that.
I think you must be unaware that the majority of software is written to save money, not to make money. There's also a huge hidden cost to software: it doesn't exist in a vacuum. "Though a program be but three lines long, someday it will have to be maintained." The cost of maintaining software for which you don't have the source code tends to be "finitely large".
You're correct in what you say, up until you identify it as a flaw. Yes, it probably keeps Linux off the desktop. I'm sure that Mark Shuttleworth cries himself to sleep over that, but I'm sure Linus couldn't give a shit, and neither do the rest of the companies which have invested untold billions of dollars worth of developer time into the Linux ecosystem.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
Their issue with JavaScript is effectively non-free JavaScript not so much the language itself. They are right now educated about JavaScript, how best to use it, so need for a replacement.
I think for the iPad Stallman would want Apple to open it more. From what I can figure essentially what he wants is some of the features in the enterprise SDK, which Apple distributes at below their cost. I attribute FSF's position on iOS to ignorance and principle and it is hard to distinguish. The FSF simply says too much that is just false when it comes to Apple for me to figure out what they want. Plus I've told them this and they've kept it up, so at this point they are lying not mistaken.
What did RMS and Chomsky talk about?
Or both?
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
His problem w/ Apple - which was why he celebrated Jobs' death - was that Apple had come out w/ several locked down features that limited the ability of their users to customize Apple products to their needs - that was his reference to golden chains which was there in one of his past interviews w/ /.. That was a part of what I was referring to in my question - why doesn't his FSF come up w/ a tablet or a phone that is as good as Apple or Android, but 'respects freedom' to the levels that he requires.
You get a robust and snappy storage and website for communication at the cost of control over your life and privacy.
I think you need to get a grip with reality: using Facebook doesn't mean you have no privacy and no control of your life...unless of course your life is nothing outside of Facebook, but in that case a grip on reality is again what you need.
I think you are missing my point. The FSF could run the enterprise server with different policies and allow people to point their iPads and iPhones to it. They don't have to create anything. They don't have to change Apple's behaviors. They just need to use the features that Apple already provides to do most of what they want. Obviously the FSF can't overcome Apple's billions in R&D. They can't produce a better tablet. But they can follow simple directions and setup their own app store with their own policies that phones could choose to register against.
But it doesn't get around what RMS has been campaigning for - getting people to stop using Apple products. My question was - let's say people do like he suggests. What are the alternatives that his organizations provide that would enable them to continue to work seamlessly as before? Fine, they can't produce a better phone or tablet. But they can produce a phone using, say, Replicant. So why don't they do it, starting in small volumes, and encouraging people to buy that, using 'libre' as their selling pitch? Somewhat like the Librem laptops in the other Purism story here?
Well that's the question which is his objective. Having a non-proprietery operating system for mobile (Android with something playing the role of Google Play) on other people's hardware with no DRM doesn't require the FSF to get into the hardware business. Obviously they can create a phone using Replicant. And let's assume they can hit volumes of around 200k per 6mo which is about where they need to be to be not losing money. What does that buy them? It does nothing to change culture.
As far as I'm concerned RMS has always aimed for more mainstream not just hobbyist usage. That's why for example the GNU project tackled COBOL so early while doing other hacker friendly stuff later. He wanted GNU to be mainstream (not that the COBOL helped but the attitude of aiming for mainstream did). A Replicant based obscure phone that under a million people use does almost nothing for the cause of freedom.
"Why are you such a dick?"
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
A few years back you were at at Q&A session, which was filmed and posted. At one point a gentleman had queries about software patent traps, during which you removed your shoe and sock and began pulling something off your foot to eat. My question is: What the fuck, dude?
Hi RMS, Microsoft's Bill Gates insists AI is a threat Bill Gates joins Elon Musk and Stephen Hawking in saying artificial intelligence is scary What do you think of that?
I'm trying to establish a chain-of-trust to the replicant project's files.
You have signed their key fingerprint, so if I can get a reliable .
I have 6781 9B34 3B2A B70D ED93 2087 2C64 64AF 2A8E 4C02 as YOUR (new) key fingerprint.
But MITM attacks could, in principle, have corrupted my downloading of that and/or could corrupt any handshake process I'm familiar with that we could reasonably accomplish over a Q&A over slashdot.
I'm in the silicon valley area. Is there any easy way to get in touch with you to confirm that fingerprint or obtain the correct one? Will you be appearing in person some time in the near future? Has it been painted as graffiti or a sign in a known place (and check periodically to be sure it's not modified)? Is there someone you know who is in the Silicon Valley area who is a public enough person to identify and who has your fingerprint and is willing to confirm it? Etc.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way