Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

How Psychology Today Sees Richard Stallman (psychologytoday.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on from the come-along-and-share-the-Stallman dept.

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."

5 of 247 comments (clear)

  1. I used to think RMS was mad... by iMadeGhostzilla · · Score: 5, Insightful

    and I still do but I'm slowly accepting there's some wisdom in forcing the software we all rely on to be transparent.

    1. Re:I used to think RMS was mad... by taiwanjohn · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Eccentric" is a term reserved for rich people who are batshit crazy.

      No, it simply means "unconventional and slightly strange"... which is certainly true of Stallman, whatever you may think of his relevance in any other aspect. As a longtime user of "GNU/Linux" (22 years and counting) I'm grateful for his contributions to "the cause" (whatever that may be). You may quibble about which license is "freer" but some people might think that level of scrutiny is a bit eccentric. Though I did try FreeBSD once, many years ago, it didn't work well for me. Maybe I'm just lazy... whatever.

      Bottom line: Linux just keeps getting better, and I never have to pay a dime for it. And I don't really worry about viruses (though I am careful about opening stray links anyway). And Stallman played a major role in making that possible. What have you or I or most other folks accomplished to rival that?

      What I wonder is, will the HURD ever overtake Linux as the de-facto kernel? I rather doubt it. But the rest of GNU is indispensable.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
    2. Re:I used to think RMS was mad... by phantomfive · · Score: 5, Informative
      OK, now I was curious enough to actually look for examples of Einstein humor. To some degree, he has the sort of self-deprecating humor that you'd see in eastern Europe. Einstein humor quotes:

      You ask me if I keep a notebook to record my great ideas. I’ve only ever had one
      It's not that I'm so smart, it's just that I stay with problems longer.
      Any man who can drive safely while kissing a pretty girl is simply not giving the kiss the attention it deserves.
      If A equals success, then the formula is: A = X + Y + Z, X is work. Y is play. Z is keep your mouth shut.
      I never think of the future. It comes soon enough.

      Maybe that is the kind of Yiddish sense of humor, I don't know. It doesn't quite feel Russian to me (obviously it's not), too optimistic.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  2. Stallman is RIGHT. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Nothing else matters. You can hate the man or feel inconvenienced by what he says. Nothing changes the simple fact that he's right.

  3. RMS is nuts but that doesn't make him wrong by sjbe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...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.