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.
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. 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.
"Why Open Source misses the point of Free Software" by Richard Stallman: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html
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)?
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
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?
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).
Mr. Stallman, your GNU Project seems to have the momentum of a runaway freight train. Why is it so popular?
Is it hard work or sticktoitivness?
Help fight poverty: Punch a poor person.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
Is the LLVM project a greater threat to GNU/Linux than Windows or Mac OS X?
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?
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
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.
I can answer that. Because "Open Source" isn't a term coined by Richard. His ego demands that the term "Free Software" is used exclusively.
Ego is involved? - say it isn't so!
Actually, no prophet enjoys being one-upped by a successor prophet. Especially when the message of the latter is more general and gains more of a popular following than that of the former. In such cases, the original prophet has no logical choice but to brand his successor a heretic. The relative merits of the successor prophet's message are, of course, irrelevant in such cases.
Ironic, ain't it? - that using, modifying ,and redistributing many of the ideas of "Free Software" under the moniker of "Open Source" is considered undesirable by the guy who invites us to freely use, modify, and redistribute source code. Go figure. Then again, nobody likes to be forked, even though that's a logical result of the freedom to use, modify, and redistribute.
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
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?
Going forward, what do you believe is the relevance of GNU?
-- I was raised on the command line, bitch
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
Try having an opinion different than a liberal and you will see how puritanical they can be.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Uh, do we have any REAL questions?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Sorry, clicked the wrong article. Someone mod the parent of this one (also by me) offtopic if you have some modpoints to spare. Thanks.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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
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?
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)
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?
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?
You have demanded on your website in the past that Israel shelter Palestinian gays who risk getting killed by Hamas. Have you ever considered the irony that those you support in that region do exactly the things that you accuse people on the Right (in any country) of wanting to do?
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?
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?