Richard Stallman Calls Open Source Movement 'Amoral', Criticizes Apple And Microsoft For 'Censoring' App Installation (newleftreview.org)

Richard Stallman recently gave a 9,000-word interview in which he first reminisces about his early days at MIT's AI Lab where he "found something worth being loyal to" -- and then assesses how things have played out. Open source is an amoral, depoliticized substitute for the free-software movement... [I]t's not the name of a philosophy -- it refers to the software, but not to the users. You'll find lots of cautious, timid organizations that do things that are useful, but they don't dare say: users deserve freedom. Like Creative Commons, which does useful, practical work -- namely, preparing licences that respect the freedom to share. But Creative Commons doesn't say that users are entitled to the freedom to share; it doesn't say that it's wrong to deny people the freedom to share. It doesn't actively uphold that principle.

Of course, it's much easier to be a supporter of open source, because it doesn't commit you to anything. You could spend ten minutes a week doing things that help advance open source, or just say you're a supporter -- and you're not a hypocrite, because you can't violate your principles if you haven't stated any. What's significant is that, in their attempt to separate our software from our ideas, they've reduced our ability to win people over by showing what those ideas have achieved...

For a long time, Microsoft was the main enemy of users' freedom, and then, for the past ten years or so, it's been Apple. When the first iThings came out, around 2007, it was a tremendous advance in contempt for users' freedom because it imposed censorship of applications -- you could only install programs approved by Apple. Ironically, Apple has retreated from that a little bit. If a program is written in Swift, you can now install it yourself from source code. So, Apple computers are no longer 100 per cent jails. The tablets too. A jail is a computer in which installation of applications is censored. So Apple introduced the first jail computer with the iPhone. Then Microsoft started making computers that are jails, and now Apple has, you might say, opened a window into the jail -- but not the main door.
Stallman cites free-software alternatives to Skype like Linphone, Ekiga, and xJitsi, and also says he's In favor of projects like GNU social, a free software microblogging server, and the distributed social networking service Diaspora. "I know they're useful for other people, but it wouldn't fit my lifestyle. I just use email." In fact, he calls mobile computing one of the three main setbacks of the free-software movement. "[P]hones and tablets, designed from the ground up to be non-free. The apps, which tend now to be non-free malware. And the Intel management engine, and more generally the low-level software, which we can't replace, because things just won't allow us to do so....

"[P]eople in the software field can't avoid the issue of free versus proprietary software, freedom-respecting versus freedom-trampling software. We have a responsibility, if we're doing things in the software field, to do it in a way that is ethical. I don't know whether we will ever succeed in liberating everyone, but it's clearly the right direction in which to push."

Comments

He only makes sense...

[Anonymous Coward]

... to freedom lovers.

Re:He only makes sense...

[unixisc]

I almost never agree w/ rms, but I've finally found something where I can. The demand that Apple and Microsoft (and for that matter, Google) stop censoring what apps can be installed. I'm not aware about Microsoft censoring anything, since traditional applications can still be installed on Windows 10, but Apple and Google - their respective app stores are the only way to install things. So when they shut out apps like Gab, they are picking their own favored winners & losers

Re:He only makes sense...

[pegdhcp]

On the principle I agree with your (but not RMS') position with some "but" items... *) It is possible to install any software on Apple computers, that is written for MacOs. Limitations apply only to phones, which you can bypass with great and increasing difficulty *) Similarly it is not encouraged to install uncontrolled by Google (or producer) software on android phones, but with several, some very legally supported by producers, methods any software also can be installed in Androids. *) The point most IT people missing is that phone users mostly do not have any at all technical knowledge for both evaluating the security of and managing installation of 3rd party software. I personally support limitation of software installation on phones, not a-la Apple but a-la Google, as the unlimited installation options would lead catastrophic results. Both RMS and his minions have never been able to understand most users are (well, sorry but) utter imbeciles regarding software and computer management. You can barely trust them to use an idiot proof UI, that is all. If you remember, one of the most common arguments of team RMS was everybpdy was in need of accessing the source code of their programs. No sir they are not, you cannot trust a user with source code more than you can trust a driver to calibrate and maintain a car engine...

He's right

[phantomfive]

People typically criticize Stallman based on style, because they can't touch him based on substance.

Re:He's right

[Anrego]

It's not really about right or wrong, it's about pragmatism.

It's easy to stand up and rattle on about how everything is evil, but people still need things to work. The real world is about compromise and choosing your battles. Hard core idealists serve a purpose, but they don't tend to drive effective change very often, and tend to be regarded (often correctly) as lunatics.

Re:He's right

[Dutch Gun]

Well, some childish folks do, I suppose, but that's nothing new or unique with polarizing figures. Some people like me simply disagree with his fundamental philosophy, while still respecting his opinion and what he and his contemporaries did for the state of computing decades ago. It seems like these days he's more advocate and software philosopher. I think he's definitely worth listening to, even if you don't necessarily agree with all the points he makes, because if nothing else, what he says often makes you think about how things are and how they could be better.

One problem is that his philosophy simply brushes aside any arguments one might have that inconveniently points out situations in which free software is not a practical solution. Let's take videogames, for example. No one has really figured out how to combine a popular consumer-goods-type product like that with the philosophy of free software. The common advice when asked how to make a living writing free software of "provide a service for hire to support your product" only works with some very narrow types of products, and never really with consumer-level products. So, essentially, videogames simply don't exist in Stallman's universe.

I do consider myself a proponent of "open source", but not necessarily "free software" as defined by Stallman. I use the MIT license, not GPL, because I feel that works better for the open source libraries I've released. I don't mind if people use them in open or closed source products. That's none of my concern. But I've made a contribution that other people can make use of if they choose.

Good article, btw.

Re:He's right

[sg_oneill]

The thing is, RMS has a habit of coming across unhinged on a topic, and then a few years later you realise he was dead right about it.

When I first read the "Right to read" thing, I thought it was nuts.

Then my damn Kindle died and I had to figure out how to get the books into another format. Well thanks to the DMCA it turns out I have to break the law to do that. But worse than that, a student who needs access to library journals now finds themselves in a situation of breaking the law vs DRM infested journal articles. The 'right to read' was 100% correct in its predictions. Well other than the "Tycho rebelion" or whatever it was, hey its Sci-Fi.

I could go on, but the point is, for all his faults, he's usually right about a lot more things than its often comfortable to admit.

Re:He's right

[sg_oneill]

Stallman is a deontologist, of sorts. By that I mean he subscribes to an ethical stance that basically asserts that certain things are moral or immoral, regardless of circumstance. Its a position normally associated with the philosopher Kant, who basically asserts that morals should be rooted in logic, not experience. So for instance Murder is wrong, because we ourselves would not want to be murdered (as being murdered denies us the ability to do other things and therefore it is illogical to want), and thus since an ethical code that only applies to one person is illogical (because something good can not be something bad, and thus good for me and bad for you contradicts), murder is always wrong, regardless of circumstance.

So I'd argue that RMS is a deontologist and that the right to source code comes from a 'perfect duty' (in Kants sense) to the truth. Because you should not lie to people, neither should your code, and thus providing the source allows another person to know the 'truth' of the software they run. And because we're talking deontology, we also have a right to assume that the other will behave the same way.

Now does that mean he's *correct*. Well not necessarily. Deontological positions are flawed in many respects. There might be circumstances where murder makes sense (You find out someone is going to kill you, and you realise the hitman is being protected by the police. You might just have to kill the hitman preemptively) or a lie makes sense (Someone asks where your wife works so they can go and murder her.) and perhaps there are times when non-free software might make a lot of sense.

But I'd argue that at the very least, RMS is right more often than he's now.

Re:He's right

[unixisc]

Sure they can!!! There have been very legitimate criticisms of all his jihads against all sorts of things - from 'Open Source' to non-GNU licenses. On this site, his stance on TiVo have been heavily criticized, as has been his demand that software should not have owners, and that programmers should do their coding on a voluntary basis, and seek to pay their bills some other way.

The criticism of his style - from his hygene to his habits - are just icing on the cake.

Re:He's right

[101percent]

Individual liberty and Freedom did not hardly exist for the entirety of human civilization. Things are far too complicated do fall into your prediction. We can look at the Industrial Revolution. Obviously there are books on this, but things progressed from kids working in coal mines to the 8 hour work day. People are becoming more informed on things like AI. And powerful people on all sides are starting to realize we can't have a select few just people spying on other people. Genetically bred humans in the near future is complete bullshit. That will be a huge debate that will take a century even if we have the technology. Just look at abortion. We aren't doomed.

Re:He's right

[Kjella]

By that I mean he subscribes to an ethical stance that basically asserts that certain things are moral or immoral, regardless of circumstance.

Yes, RMS wants the world to be perfect and perfect is the enemy of good. If the world is using 100% "immoral" software and I had an idea to use 95% open source and 5% closed source he'd tell me that my idea was still immoral and that it should be 100% or I should walk away. It doesn't matter if it's better than what was before. It doesn't matter if 95% puts food on the table and going 100% would make me homeless. It's the same on the user side, you never have any other obligations or priorities that would make getting shit done more important than using morally sound software. And you can't waste a few minutes playing Angry Birds without the source code, it's not enough until you join him in the ivory tower of 100% purity.

It's like watching one of those eco-hippies with the carbon footprint of a mouse, I mean they're not bad people. But when being environmentally friendly becomes your one moral imperative that the rest of your life revolves around it's just too much for 99.9% of us. Like if you can't get to work without a car the answer is to move or quit your job. Whether you like steaks or not, being a vegetarian is more eco-friendly so quit eating meat. Stop going places because airplanes are carbon monsters, go camping in the woods. I mean most of us don't want to be polluting, wasteful eco-swines we usually look to be a bit greener but when you go over the top you end up pretty much alone in your lifestyle. I don't think the 0.1% save the world through their moral purity.

Amoral but not immoral.

[Gravis Zero]

Open source is amoral meaning that it shows no concern about whether behavior is morally right or wrong. However, this doesn't mean it's immoral (conflicting with morals). What this does is provides people with the source code and the choice of acting morally. This is real freedom for the recipient of the source code. The "free-software movement" removes this choice from the recipient of the source code by obligating them to act a certain way.

I'm just a guy that likes to write code that does something nice for people. I can only speak for myself but whether people want to use my code morally or not really my interest so I don't try to make it my business.

Do note that GPL'd tools are used as a basis for the most insidious and invasive systems devised (e.g. Facebook).

Stallman can afford to take this stand

[Elfich47]

Stallman can afford to take this stand because he understands what is involved in programming; the ins, the outs, the nitty gritty.
br> My mom doesn't have the time, energy, inclination to learn how to program or maintain a home spooled build or double check the source code of every app she uses. She just wants it to work. And apple, for all of the complaints about the walled garden provides products that just work.

For comparison look at Android. Android has a much more open applications market. Also look at the Android current scandal involving hundreds of applications, ad fraud and millions of dollars. The casual user doesn't have the time to figure out if a particular app is also a time bomb, bitcoin miner, ad fraud machine or something else.

Yes, apple keeps things locked down with so tight it squeaks. But it also limits malevolent actors from stealing from innocent people. People trust that apps in the apple app store are not malicious. And that is the trade off: Safe Apps that aren't malicious instead of the android wild wild west.

guh

[fyngyrz]

So, Apple computers are no longer 100 per cent jails.

"Apple computers" != "iThings", Richard.

Re: Not sure about that

[gnasher719]

What a rant. Your problem is it just exposes you as an ignorant idiot.