Slashdot Mirror
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."
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."
... to freedom lovers.
People typically criticize Stallman based on style, because they can't touch him based on substance.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
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).
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
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.
Architectural plans are like computer source code with a couple of differences: You only compile once.
Bullshit -- that would only require a single tamper-resistant IC on the phone, maybe paired with a fingerprint reader. The rest of the device could be completely user-repairable without damaging security. As far as Samsung, their bloatware sucks. Go Motorola -- they're making an effort to be repair-friendly and their Android flavor has a minimum of bloatware. Also: the non-Scamazon versions of their phones officially allow bootloader unlocking.
May as well be. They dropped the "Computer" company title way back. Tim cook has said ios and ithings are the future. And their products reflect that. It's coming. Apple is a consumer company that have their hands in all types of things.
The ONLY thing Apple and Google should be doing for their "app store" approval process is to make sure the app is not malware, i.e. won't infect/compromise your system.
That depends on a precise definition of "compromise your system" on which all parties can agree. If you let Apple define "compromise your system", you end up with the present App Store Review Guidelines, just with an excuse below each line item as to why Apple deems a violation a "compromise" of the iOS experience.
a) Nearly 100% of the userspace that makes your "Linux" system run is part of the GNU project
Not necessarily. Sure, you're running GNU/Linux if you use Debian, Fedora, or any other system built on GNU Coreutils, Bash, glibc, GCC, GTK+, and the like. But a lot of my Xubuntu laptop's RAM is occupied by things like X.Org X11, Xfce panel, Thunar, Mousepad, Firefox, GIMP, and other things that aren't "GNU software" because FSF doesn't own the copyright. GNU exceeds Linux in distributions like these but is by no means the majority. There also exist Linux systems that use little or no GNU software, such as Alpine Linux, Android, OpenWrt, and Starch Linux.
What a rant. Your problem is it just exposes you as an ignorant idiot.
What Facebook has taught me is that most people are sheep. Based simply on what people share (absolutely ridiculous things that they believe is true, and don't care one iota about validating or verifying, that any normal person with common sense should know is almost certainly a scam). Do any of you have friends or family members who just kept infecting their computer over and over opening emails or links or believing some popup on a web page that said their computer was infected and they needed to download a tool to clean it? That is the "normal" general population in an online computing environment. They do not care about the technical aspects, only the most superficial functionality the software provides.
My conclusion is that the average person *requires* some gatekeeping and protection against their own lack of interest, lack of effort and lack of motivation to protect themselves. When it comes to platforms / hardware, like iPhone, or Android, or Windows, people gain an impression of that platform by how easily it lets them shoot themselves in the foot. Oh, they won't accept responsibility that they are the problem. Of course not. But if platform Y makes it harder to shoot themselves in the foot than platform X, then they will perceive platform Y as being better. Because it is, from a user experience point of view.
Stallman makes an assumption in his reasoning that everyone is him. And that is flawed. He is atypical, in regards to computing and software.
Finally, I will say that this statement is flat out wrong:
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.
That has nothing to do with Swift. Since the beginning of 3rd party iOS app development (iOS version 2), you could always install and run any software you compiled on devices that you physically connected to the Mac. That could be in Objective-C or C++ or C, and of course now includes Swift as well. Additionally, XCode has always been free.
Better known as 318230.
The entire point of the Open Source movement's founding was to build a movement that would create Free Software that didn't have an ideology associated with it beyond "This is the way that the highest quality software can be built." You might argue that that is a moral point of view, but you'd then have to assert that, say, Agile project management or Managed Code (eg JVM, CIL) are moral movements too. They aren't, at least not in the traditional sense.
Free Software (whose baggage the OSI was formed to leave behind) was based on the central principle that nobody has the right to hide from you knowledge, or prevent you from using that knowledge. You have to admit that's an entirely different moral ballpark compared to "we can make better software if more people can contribute to it."
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.