Slashdot Mirror
How Psychology Today Sees Richard Stallman (psychologytoday.com)
After our article about Richard Stallman's new video interview, Slashdot reader silverjacket shared this recent profile from Psychology Today that describes Richard Stallman's quest "to save us from a web of spyware -- and from ourselves."
By using proprietary software, Stallman believes, we are forfeiting control of our computers, and thus of our digital lives. In his denunciation of all nonfree software as inherently abusive and unethical, he has alienated many possible allies and followers. But he is not here to make friends. He is here to save us from a software industry he considers predatory in ways we've yet to recognize... for Stallman, moralism is the whole point. If you write or use free software only for practical reasons, you'll stop when it's inconvenient, and freedom will disappear.
Stallman collaborator Eben Moglen -- a law professor at Columbia, as well as the FSF's general counsel -- assesses Stallman's legacy by saying "the idea of copyleft and the proposition that social and political freedom can't happen in a society without technological freedom -- those are his long-term meanings. And humanity will be aware of those meanings for centuries, whatever it does about them." The article also includes quotes from Linus Torvalds and Eric S. Raymond -- along with some great artwork.
In addition to insisting the reporter refer to Linux as "GNU/Linux," Stallman also required that the article describe free software without using the term open source, a phrase he sees as "a way that people who disagree with me try to cause the ethical issues to be forgotten." And he ultimately got Psychology Today to tell its readers that "Nearly all the software on our phones and computers, as well as on other machines, is nonfree or 'proprietary' software and is riddled with spyware and back doors installed by Apple, Google, Microsoft, and the like."
Stallman collaborator Eben Moglen -- a law professor at Columbia, as well as the FSF's general counsel -- assesses Stallman's legacy by saying "the idea of copyleft and the proposition that social and political freedom can't happen in a society without technological freedom -- those are his long-term meanings. And humanity will be aware of those meanings for centuries, whatever it does about them." The article also includes quotes from Linus Torvalds and Eric S. Raymond -- along with some great artwork.
In addition to insisting the reporter refer to Linux as "GNU/Linux," Stallman also required that the article describe free software without using the term open source, a phrase he sees as "a way that people who disagree with me try to cause the ethical issues to be forgotten." And he ultimately got Psychology Today to tell its readers that "Nearly all the software on our phones and computers, as well as on other machines, is nonfree or 'proprietary' software and is riddled with spyware and back doors installed by Apple, Google, Microsoft, and the like."
and I still do but I'm slowly accepting there's some wisdom in forcing the software we all rely on to be transparent.
the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself.
Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
- George Bernard Shaw
Have gnu, will travel.
Nothing else matters. You can hate the man or feel inconvenienced by what he says. Nothing changes the simple fact that he's right.
...and I still do but I'm slowly accepting there's some wisdom in forcing the software we all rely on to be transparent.
RMS is a bit crazy and certainly could be fairly described as a fanatic. I also think he is a clumsy advocate, a terrible public speaker, and his arguments aren't always grounded in reality. He is too easy to dismiss as a loon by those who have an interest in doing so. That doesn't mean he's entirely wrong. While I think he goes off the deep end a bit with his moralizing but in practical terms he is quite right that there is a huge loss of value to society in allowing too much of our tools to be kept under lock and key.
One of the great things about owning a drill press for example is that I can open it up and tinker with it if I feel the need. Nobody can tell me that I cannot. I might void a warranty but that's my choice and I can willingly take that risk. Heck I can even sell the modified device in most cases. But with most proprietary software I cannot do the equivalent tinkering. I can't open it up (figuratively speaking) and tweak the tool to my particular needs. Free (as in speech) software remedies this problem.
I don't have a principled objection to the existence of all proprietary software but RMS is very correct that if we lack a large toolbox of software tools that we can modify and adapt and build upon then we are ultimately causing very real and measurable harm to society. Imagine where science would be today if scientists were prevented by law from sharing their discoveries. Imagine a world where tool makers weren't allowed to improve on or use tools made by others. Imagine if chemists couldn't share chemical formulas. We are at risk of the doing something incredibly stupid in making it too easy to prevent the sharing of mere instructions for machines. That's not a moral argument - it's a practical one. We're limiting our own economic future by having clumsy copyright and patent laws that allow a few to lock up much of what should be accessible to all.
The issue Stallman has (software that is not under lock and key, can be freely modified and redistributed is good) but oh my god he needs to stop acting like the bearded freak show on the city corner on a soap box screaming THE END IS NIGH.
Yes, spyware, malware, freakware, stealware is bad and open source software can help address these issues. But coming off as a loose cannon who is going to insult anyone who is not in lockstep alienates everyone you get within ten yards of. It also doesn't help that Stallman has a reputation as a misogynist, immediate turning off half the audience that could be sympathetic to the issue he is bringing up.
Stallman is going to have to decide which is more important: The content of the message he wants to deliver or how he plans to deliver it. Eventually some other person is going to package the exact same Stallman is saying in a more palatable form for mass consumption. Come to think of it, its already occuring with mainstream Linux distributions. But eventually someone who is charismatic and how the technical background will supplant Stallman as the flag bearer for the "Purer open source" that will protect everyone.
Architectural plans are like computer source code with a couple of differences: You only compile once.
Nothing else matters. You can hate the man or feel inconvenienced by what he says. Nothing changes the simple fact that he's right.
I don't hate or love the man. Nothing he does inconveniences me in the least. But he's not "right" about everything. He does have many very valid points, quite a few of which are logically unassailable as far as I can tell. Tools that cannot be modified or improved are a serious hindrance to society. Human society was built on the ability to make, modify, improve, and share tools. The notion that we can write mere instructions for a machine that aren't allowed to be shared with anyone is a very dangerous and stupid idea. Imagine if scientists were prohibited from sharing discoveries and formulas and you get a good idea of the severity of the consequences.
But he also makes the mistake of making it a moral argument in places where it clearly is not. Perhaps worse, he does so in places where a moral argument is unnecessary or even counterproductive. Morals vary from person to person and society to society. This allows people who do not share his moral belief system to dismiss him easily. Much of what RMS argues for can and should be argued from an economic perspective. RMS should explain it to people why it is in their own economic self interest to have free (as in speech) software. It's FAR more likely to be persuasive and the end result is the same - more people using free software. Economic self interest is a much stronger incentive to most people than abstract morals about tools that most people barely understand how to use much less build.
I agree with RMS for the most part but let's take his work and improve on it just like he hopes we will do with code. He's done some good work but it's imperfect and its up to the rest of us to build on it and make it better.
Why? Do arguments become more valid when presented by someone well groomed?
Persuading people involves a great deal more than simply making an argument with airtight logic. If logic was all that mattered, organized religion would have died out centuries ago. Like it or not, how an argument is presented can often matter more than the argument itself. And yes this can extend to personal grooming habits at times. This is a concept that understandably tends to be an anathema to many engineers but it's provably true. It doesn't matter if he is factually right if no one is willing to listen to what he says. Personal grooming and presentation can matter greatly at times. There is a reason that salesmen tend to present a polished image with a friendly face - it works. There is a reason preachers in church are very good at public speaking and understand the value of ceremony and presentation. It's the sugar that helps the medicine go down.
That said, the idiot who made the comment about grooming and toejam is an imbecile. Dismissing someone's idea out of hand because you dislike their appearance is idiotic and juvenile. Whether or not RMS presents himself well has zero bearing on whether what he is saying is correct.