Addressing both your comment and the grandparent comment: this distinction of allowing non-free software is part of what distinguishes the older free software movement from the younger open source movement. RMS has been talking and writing about this critical distinction for years.
The idea of open source is that allowing users to change and redistribute the software will make it more powerful and reliable. But this is not guaranteed. Developers of proprietary software are not necessarily incompetent. Sometimes they produce a program that is powerful and reliable, even though it does not respect the users' freedom. Free software activists and open source enthusiasts will react very differently to that.
A pure open source enthusiast, one that is not at all influenced by the ideals of free software, will say, "I am surprised you were able to make the program work so well without using our development model, but you did. How can I get a copy?" This attitude will reward schemes that take away our freedom, leading to its loss.
The free software activist will say, "Your program is very attractive, but I value my freedom more. So I reject your program. Instead I will support a project to develop a free replacement." If we value our freedom, we can act to maintain and defend it.
In other words, open source won't endorse software freedom for its own sake. That movement was designed to never raise the issue of software freedom in order to promote a developmental methodology thought to lead to more reliable, more powerful programs. That methodology is fine as far as it goes (everyone likes powerful robust programs) but as we're seeing with the Snowden revelations, that methodology doesn't go far enough. RMS realized this very early on and has been providing ethical counterarguments since the open source movement began (older essay, newer essay).
This difference explains what we're seeing in the very different approaches taken in Linus Torvalds' fork of the Linux kernel versus the GNU Linux-libre fork of the Linux kernel. Linux-libre's distinction is that this fork removes the blobs that come with the Torvalds fork of the Linux kernel. Torvalds includes nonfree code meant to make the kernel run on more hardware which places a high value on convenience at the cost of software freedom. Linux-libre values software freedom instead. As a result, Linux-libre doesn't run on as much hardware and might not take advantage of everything modern hardware can do, but one gains a system they are allowed to fully inspect, share, and modify—software freedom. Linux-libre lets users make sure the software does only what that user wants that program to do. RMS, as recently as his recent responses to/. questions, encouraged readers to reverse engineer hardware in order to fully document hardware ("The parts of Linux we need to replace are the nonfree parts, the "binary blobs". [...] The main work necessary to replace the blobs is reverse engineering to determine the specs of the peripherals those blobs are used in. That's a tremendously important job -- please join in if you can."). This work leads to increased support for fully free operating systems, including fully free support in Linux-libre.
Increased security is one of the things you get with the pursuit of software freedom for its own sake. I think RMS very much recognizes the security enhancements that come along with Linux-libre and why his org
The objection you seem to have missed is that proprietors treat users badly without the user's ability to effectively improve the program for their own needs (even by hiring someone to do this work on their behalf). So better to rejecting non-free software on ethical grounds. Whether spies have used the power of a proprietary Angry Birds is a weak response compared to asking whether anybody should have to choose a potential loss of privacy to play a videogame. Tracking users (no matter how) without their explicit knowledge is something people don't know about and, when they learn about it, don't like. It's a shame you have such personal anger toward Stallman that you refuse to convey understanding his points. Your namecalling ("bearded zealot", "mooching") and lame counterarguments like "There's more effective ways for snoops to get info than through angry birds" run the risk of reading as tacit acceptance of RMS's points without giving him due credit for bringing those points to the public.
We don't know who can get data from RMS's Loonsong MIPS machine but paying attention to these issues and using what's available to practical effect is leading by example; a far more respectful approach which complaining and namecalling just can't beat.
how absolutely boring it is to read essentially the same message ("all software should be free and you should refuse to use any software that isn't free") repeated about 15 times with 15 minor variations. Surely RMS isn't this one-dimensional. I wish there had been some more interesting questions that weren't just prompts to repeat the free software mantra over and over again.
It's not RMS's fault that he was asked similarly un"interesting" questions that each came with the repetitive prejudices (asking about the younger movement he didn't start instead of the older movement he did start, framing issues in terms of amorality and not questioning what non-free software entails). Looking at the questions, it's clear that they were asked by people who didn't bother to read the essays linked to in the original/. story soliciting questions for him. I remember when/. used to criticize behavior like that. A lot of what people bump into are issues where software freedom has a practical response that can liberate users from dependency on untrustworthy programmers, but thanks to an amoral stance on these issues the public is never taught to see how a technocratic/developmental stance (open source, focus on features and price, focus on slick interfaces) can run contrary to their interests (preserving their privacy, retaining and exercising their civil liberties, not being beaten or killed). It's convenient to see a movie when you wish, but certainly not as important as avoiding being spied upon everywhere you go.
Now 15 years later I read his responses to these questions and it all feels very much the same. He's apparently super paranoid (worried about the government eavesdropping on your cell phone calls and tracking you? Wishing for a pager so that you could perfectly control how much tracking information you give when you answer your phone? Jesus christ, get over yourself!) and thinks everyone else should be too.
That's probably because you haven't been paying much attention to what Edward Snowden has been telling us, nor have you been thinking deeply about the consequences of those revelations. I suggest watching Eben Moglen's insightful talks on this topic for some historical perspective on how "one-dimensional" your take is and how much under threat the entire world is these days. That is, if you're not too busy dismissing Moglen for being an FSF lawyer and former FSF board member who deeply appreciates software freedom for its own sake.
I never learned exactly his feelings on the matter because when I tried to ask for some clarification I was immediately shouted down by his cronies who thought I was trying to hassle him or something (I assure you, I wasn't; I just wanted to understand his position better since I had never heard of someone refusing to use passwords and didn't understand why).
I'd be more likely to believe you on this claim if the rest of your opinions were better defended. But it's awfully hard to take someone too seriously when they're so easily dissuaded by stylistic matters over substantive examination of pertinant issues.
At least Firefox can be altered to become what you want it to be because Firefox respect's a users software freedom. Far more important than vagaries like "fast" and "not bloated" is how a program treats its users. Proprietary browsers leave users no opportunity for improving the program. Thus security issues in proprietary programs go unfixed and are exploited for years. This, in turn, allows others to invade people's computers and leaves users helpless. This is exactly what happened with Apple's iTunes for over 3 years. I would not be surprised to learn that software proprietors including Microsoft, Google, and Apple are doing similar things with proprietary web browser programs as well.
So while I like trustworthy programs like other computer users, I know that I can't ascertain the trustworthiness of proprietary programs like Microsoft's Internet Explorer, Apple's Safari, and Google's Chrome. The extent to which any of them are built from software that respects my software freedom is irrelevant because proprietary programs and their updates are essentially black boxes. I can't possibly inspect or fix all of the software I use, but I can put myself in a position where I stand to benefit from the improvements a lot of programmers make by exclusively running software that respects my freedom to run, inspect, share, and modify—free software—freedoms I value in their own right.
I'm sure many serious flaws in many free programs have been around for a long time, some flaws longer than this flaw. But free software advocates make no guarantees you'll get secure code. If you'd like that guarantee perhaps you can purchase a programmer's time to get that; perhaps you should have hired a programmer to inspect this code on your behalf, looking for security issues, raising them upstream, and fixing them for you (software freedom gives you these options as I mentioned before). Your objection really stems from your belief that open source and free software are discussing the issue starting from the same underlying philosophy.
The philosophies are not the same therefore the two movements arrive at different conclusions: Structurally speaking, programmers know that malware can be easily hidden in proprietary programs yet it's rare to find malware in free software for the same reason—those who forbid users from inspecting, sharing, and modifying source code can more easily sneak malware into the code. Focusing on price and technical issues (such as features, speed, and reliability) isn't bad but doesn't go nearly far enough. More and more users understand that society needs more than framing the debate around a developmental methodology as the open source movement does. So, the more one values catching bad code early (as we all, rightly, do) the more everyone should value software freedom for its own sake. Software freedom lets us increase the odds for using better code by treating computer users respectfully through granting and securing our permission to inspect, share, and modify that free code. All computer users deserve software freedom.
Apple's code was based on something "open source" but that does Apple's users no good because of what I already said: Apple's distributed code to its users are proprietary. Better to have the alleged "mess" to track down than to know there's no point in tracking down anything because what you'll find is something you're not allowed to inspect, modify, or share. Here you're really highlighting the difference between free software and open source: open source advocates don't want to talk about how people ought to treat one another and are eager to distract discussion away from ethics by conflating freedom with hassle. Free software activists endorse freedom as a good unto itself because it lets us treat one another with decency and respect.
Apple may have known about the issue for a while and not talked about it until it could release whatever proprietary blob alleges to be a fix. Apple's users might have known Apple's software was buggy too, but not been able to do anything about fixing Apple's code, since that's the nature of proprietary software. Apple has sat on exploitable security issues before; in that case, governments used that iTunes security hole to invade people's computers (as RMS points out). So in that case, apparently multiple people knew iTunes was a security problem.
Just because your six year old hasn't been taught the value of software freedom doesn't make software freedom worthless. I'm guessing there are a lot of things a six year old has not yet come to value which they will later learn they should have valued all along. Perhaps teaching your six year old to value substantive issues like ethical understanding of how people treat one another would be a good start. And while I certainly wish anyone with a fix would have shared that fix, they're under no obligation to share in the free software world and I doubt they'll be convinced to by your namecalling. But the situation is still better that anyone could have fixed this (and possibly some did) rather than having no option but hoping the proprietor takes an interest.
So when Apple's proprietary encryption software suffered a problem, Apple users could do nothing but wait for Apple to deliver a fix; there's nobody else that are allowed to fix Apple's proprietary software but Apple. And when that fix ostensibly arrived, Apple users had to hope it wasn't bundled with some malware too (as is often in proprietary software).
This bug was caught during an audit—"The vulnerability was discovered during an audit of GnuTLS for Red Hat.". Nobody but the proprietor can audit proprietary software. But with free software, users have the freedom to audit the code they run, patch that code, and run their patched code; users can choose to fix bugs themselves or get someone else to fix bugs for them. And users don't have to always trust the same people to do work on their behalf. Users can also choose to wait for a fix to be distributed, and then they can choose to check that fix to make sure it doesn't contain malware. For all we know some users have long spotted and fixed this bug in GNUTLS. Since all complex software has bugs bugs are unavoidable. We're better off depending on people we choose to trust. Software freedom is better for its own sake.
Because DRM denies Keurig owners their ability to use their devices freely. I certainly agree that buying a Keurig sends the wrong message, and we should not do this, but we can take an active role in not buying DRM'd devices and services including this coffee maker. This coffee maker is a nice entry to understanding the value of freedom; not necessary for coffee but also a teaching opportunity. History tells us that we are better off to fight for freedom for what we have and need than to idly hope that someone else will improve one's lot and eventually respect our freedoms. Ethical evaluations can't be understood as personal preferences as you're trying to do here. As has been pointed out on/. before, "arguments are always based on values" and your values and mine do not agree.
Letting the market handle things led to the situation we now face with DRM preventing people from making choices (highlighting how freedom of choice is so often a scam). This isn't the first instance of DRM providing no benefit to the user (eBook DRM leads to publishers and distributors taking away legally obtained copies of DRM'd eBooks like Amazon.com did in 2012 or making it possible to electronically enforce restrictions one could never get away with in paper books should the DRM proprietor so choose). The issue is not whether a proprietor has or hasn't used DRM to accomplish such a thing, the issue is that DRM grants someone or some organization the power to enforce restrictions like these, restrictions that should not exist. DefectiveByDesign.org doesn't seem to have problems coming up with plenty of other examples of how customers lose with DRM. DRM examples show us that word does not "get around pretty quickly" nor do monopolies "die a miserable death". Today there are people defending the idea of making it easier to get DRM into HTML5 instead of rejecting it out of hand based on principled opposition and experience. If things were as bad as you claim no business would bother with DRM, DRM would be rejected out of hand.
I think this situation is much better understood by looking at this in terms of a minimum acceptable interoperability; something akin to environmental law (recognizing one can't negotiate everything they need on their own so we need to work together to set acceptable standards that let us get what we need) instead of a transactional basis (one-on-one interactions where each user is on their own to negotiate a better arrangement where it's likely no one user can muster the resources to effectively challenge the proprietor). Owner's rights should enter here as well: one should be able to use whatever they want with their Keurig device including less expensive beverage pods than what Keurig sells.
I'd like to read what you have to say about free software programs for nonfree operating systems. Do you find that free software programs for nonfree operating systems help migrate users to freedom, reinforce a user's dependency on nonfree operating systems, or something else?
I'm guessing that, of the two, one can't easily avoid being spied on either way. So there's no need to take on the unethical, user-subjugating proprietary software of Skype as well. But the software involved in a traditional phone call isn't under the user's control and doesn't require the caller to take on nonfree software. There's no need to restrict our consideration to just these two options, however. As Skype is perceived as a viable alternative to the traditional phone call, Skype shows us that a free software program that respects our privacy could supplant Skype. What we need is an easily-used totally free software calling program that can encrypt calls at the ends of the call so even if the call data is recorded it can't easily be decrypted for a very long time. It would be even better if there was some way of masking the parties involved the call as well so the data describing the call is unclear as well.
If that's the case (no source is provided) that would indeed suggest better things about Stallman than Assange. Something to remember the next time someone tries to downplay software freedom by pointing out how uncomfortable they are with Stallman. What is the source for this?
The difference in philosophy can have radically different outcomes seen most clearly in the case of powerful, reliable proprietary software (adoption/recommendation for open source proponents versus rejection/replacement for free software activists is a starkly different outcome). Richard Stallman's essays on this topic point out this different reaction and the difference in philosophy that leads to the different reaction (older essay, newer essay). But those essays highlight all the more that the post to which I initially responded in this subthread is attacking the messenger (Richard Stallman): the/. thread where that post would have been on-topic is still available for posts. Moderating that post up is moderating up an ad hominem attack.
There's nothing wrong with raising and defending skeptical views, but there's been no serious defense of those views even in other followups. This thread only offers more vague attacks plus a thin layer of congratulations for working together (which, as you point out in your/. post and Stallman points out in the aforementioned newer essay, "people from the free software movement and the open source camp often work together on practical projects such as software development"). Any skepticism would have been far more fruitful and honestly raised if it was raised with the one person who could have addressed the many misperceptions in the posts. I encourage the original poster to raise those issues head-on from the most authoritative source available—the man himself in his own words.
Please do be specific about how Stallman is "too divisive" and somehow responsible for what you see as problems. Your claims are so vague it's hard to know if you are attacking the messenger instead of conveying that you understand what is being spoken about in the differences between the free software and open source movements. Quotes and references to published material would help you in what appears to be a vastly overrated post.
It seems reasonable to me to expect that any proprietor who wants to withhold software freedom from users give up that power when the program enters the public domain; code escrow as Stallman describes sounds like a viable solution to me and a perfectly fair exchange for the public. What's not reasonable is the status quo which is endless power over the user.
for most real world software houses, this doesn't happen anymore
Source? Evidence? Cygnus didn't seem to have trouble finding customers for GCC support.
As a compromise, the company I work for publishes all of our data formats (at least in my division) and nearly everything exports to XML. That means competitors and free software can create their own implementation, and people have. [...]
I don't know if that's supposed to mean the program is free software or not. If the software is nonfree, then there's no compromise that is a substitute for software freedom. Getting data out of the program won't give users an idea of what's going on when the program runs. If the program is nonfree, malware may be running. Or maybe features the users want aren't implementable by people they trust.
In the recent Clang thread, you seemed to say quality of software either isn't important to you, or at least is less important than the software being free software.
I'm not sure what post of Stallman's you're referring to because you linked to nothing and quoted nothing. Your statement is without a clear basis in anything he said, and therefore seems specious. I'll assume you're referring to his post on the GCC mailing list in which he says:
For GCC to be replaced by another technically superior compiler that defended freedom equally well would cause me some personal regret, but I would rejoice for the community's advance.
So when you follow up with:
As someone who writes software for a living, this seemed like a "jump the shark" moment. (But maybe you jumped this particular shark long ago.)
you seem to have no serious issue to raise, just name-calling. What part of what he said to the GCC list convinces you that Stallman "seemed to say quality of software [...] isn't important" as if that was to be a seriously considered alternative? For many years, GNU programs have been known as considerably powerful, GCC being one of them. Given the totality of what Stallman has been saying since 1984 it seems so much more reasonable to conclude that Stallman believes software freedom is more important than technical superiority that I suspect you're trolling.
Code quality is an achievement won with hard work, to be sure, but the fight for securing software freedom has historically taken considerable time in addition to any technical improvements needed. When people's attention is diverted away from ethics, the community suffers. This is true in every field of endeavor, software development is no exception. As the open source movement was designed to not talk about how people treat each other (1, 2), we need a careful and thorough rejection of the notion that programmers can afford to ply their talents without regard for how helping proprietors hurts our community. The free software movement gives us that ethics-based critique and it also gives us practical software with which to further improve our community.
However, your computer's BIOS, while in the past was usually impossible to change, can today be upgraded easily. That's why we now have Coreboot.
You make it sound as if technical difficulty in changing BIOS software is the issue, and I'm not sure if you realize that is not so. Software freedom has to do with an ethically based argument about giving permission to legally inspect, share, and modify published software (and, ideally, securing those freedoms to make sure nobody takes them away later). With BIOS code, as with any proprietary software, the distinction is not technical capability. The distinction centers on who is legally allowed to do what.
BIOSes prior to the arrival of Coreboot weren't all "impossible to change". BIOS distributors demonstrated that by making BIOS changes and distributing new proprietary BIOS software packages. Users were offered proprietary binaries that they could run—an ordinary installer program that allows non-technical users to easily install a new BIOS on the system.
But users were not given a copy of BIOS source code, users were not given permission to distribute the BIOS, and users were not given permission to modify the BIOS software. These users were subjugated to the BIOS developer's rule so long as they ran that BIOS code: users had no freedom to help themselves or their community. Coreboot changes this because Coreboot respects a user's software freedom, but the difference here is one of licensing. With Coreboot any user willing to learn what Coreboot does may inspect, share, and modify Coreboot; freedoms those same users don't have with a proprietary BIOS.
RMS isn't in this for popularity, he's pushing to get society to respect user's software freedom because that's what's ethical. Besides, relative to ethical observations and considered ethical thought, systemd is a minor technical change. Software changes come along from time to time and will continue to do so even replacing systemd. For all we know GNU/Hurd will offer something comparably suitable for everyday use.
Mod this one up everyone... the ONLY question out of all of these that we can't guess Stallman's answer to.
Sorry, but there's no need to guess what he'd say because he has published his thoughts on this long ago. Perhaps his position has changed, but if it had changed I'd expect an update to the aforementioned article at its current location, not an announcement of anything new on/..
How would the Swedish Pirate Party's platform affect copylefted free software? After five years, its source code would go into the public domain, and proprietary software developers would be able to include it in their programs. But what about the reverse case?
Proprietary software is restricted by EULAs, not just by copyright, and the users don't have the source code. Even if copyright permits noncommercial sharing, the EULA may forbid it. In addition, the users, not having the source code, do not control what the program does when they run it. To run such a program is to surrender your freedom and give the developer control over you.
So what would be the effect of terminating this program's copyright after 5 years? This would not require the developer to release source code, and presumably most will never do so. Users, still denied the source code, would still be unable to use the program in freedom. The program could even have a "time bomb" in it to make it stop working after 5 years, in which case the "public domain" copies would not run at all.
Thus, the Pirate Party's proposal would give proprietary software developers the use of GPL-covered source code after 5 years, but it would not give free software developers the use of proprietary source code, not after 5 years or even 50 years. The Free World would get the bad, but not the good. The difference between source code and object code and the practice of using EULAs would give proprietary software an effective exception from the general rule of 5-year copyright — one that free software does not share.
He also proposes a reasonable fix:
So I proposed that the Pirate Party platform require proprietary software's source code to be put in escrow when the binaries are released. The escrowed source code would then be released in the public domain after 5 years. Rather than making free software an official exception to the 5-year copyright rule, this would eliminate proprietary software's unofficial exception. Either way, the result is fair.
I can only guess neither you nor the original poster tried looking up keywords in a search engine (like "stallman copyright pirate party") to find the article. Also, perhaps neither of you understand that Stallman is not a member of the open source movement nor has he ever been. Thus it is not his interest to frame this issue in terms of a "closed source" anything (to use the original questioner's words). Stallman explains his position on the difference between his movement, the free software movement, and the younger proprietary-friendly open source movement in a pair of articles which have been published for many years (older article, newer article) and in just about every talk I've ever heard him give. In fact, the intro to this/. story pointed you to one of these articles.
I don't know about "Internet.org" specifically but as for using anything tied to Facebook, Instagram, and similar services: Try watching any of his recent talks, from the most recent talks to the talks dating back about a year or three. He tells you right at the top of the talk what he thinks of Facebook, Instagram, and the like—he dares to call them by their proper name: surveillance engines—and he asks users to not participate by not uploading copies of his talks and photos with him to these services. You can also read his personal website on Facebook detailing many reasons to avoid Facebook. I imagine any other service that works similarly ("Google+", for example) will receive a comparable critique.
It seems unlikely to me that any program started by these organizations will be anything other than come-ons to lose one's privacy to these data collection companies.
There are free software web browser add-ons you can install on your free software web browser: Priv3, NoScript, and various cookie editors/filters which will help you deal with the monitoring various services use when you get an offer to be tracked with a "like" button or similar thing. There's more work to be done on this ground, to be sure, but this is a good start.
I think a good speaker's charisma is a distracting issue; to frame the value of a good speaker in terms of charisma is to not spend time focusing on the veracity and importance of the message that speaker has to convey. Charisma is too often used to hide a hideous message; metaphorically candy-coating anti-social messages. Charismsa is also used by the lazy listener: why bother parsing what the speaker actually says when one can get away with superficially evaluating charisma in a 5-second sound bite?
It's easy to get around this distraction by reading a transcript of what the speaker has to say instead of hearing or watching their performance. Reading their books or papers is also very informative because that medium affords a writer the time to consider what they want to say, a luxury one doesn't have answering questions in realtime.
There are some confusions in what you're asking. It isn't Stallman or the FSF's job to supply anyone with a business model. It's the FSF's job to lay out the ethical argument to defend their case that nonfree software is unjust and that we all deserve software freedom. Put differently, and not to equate nonfree software with slavery (slavery is more oppressive than nonfree software), but ethical arguments against slavery don't have an obligation to provide alternative labor sources to exploit. Ethical arguments against slavery have to lay out why people should be treated with human dignity as equals and not as slaves. With that, there are some approaches you should consider:
You can learn to be more charismatic, if you think it necessary, but plenty of speakers with important messages (including talking about issues of life and death) are not charismatic (charisma being an eminently subjective quality). Speakers including Noam Chomsky and Jeremy Scahill get large standing-room-only audiences of engaged listeners while delivering their ideas in a perfectly reasonable way because of what they have to say and write. I find this approach to be far more respectful to the audience than that of a charismatic speaker who delivers horrible messages like US President Obama who charismatically tells the world that he'll continue George W. Bush's wars against terror, or deflects serious discussion of what he does every Tuesday when he picks whom to assassinate (sometimes referred to as "Terror Tuesdays"), or when he delivers content-free acceptance speeches like he did in Grant Park spouting vague platitudes about his forthcoming presidency (as Adolph Reed Jr. pointed out on an interview with Bill Moyers, Obama gave "evocative statements" with "no real content"), and more).
You can learn to write other software. You can learn to do other jobs besides writing software.
All software needs support, regardless of user interface. There are also features businesses will pay for that need to be added to extant free software, such as directory service-related features desired for easier mass deployment within their organization. You can learn to write software that is sold based on its support; other organizations have charged large sums of money based on software they did not initially write; Cygnus which, until it was bought by Red Hat, provided GCC consulting services.
Apparently other people find ways to develop and distribute software via Internet download, make money, and do loads of other jobs all while not exploiting people.
Stallman is not going to address your reference to "open source" in the way you expect because he is not a representative of the open source movement, nor has he ever been. Perhaps you would have done well to read the summary/. provided on this story and the links contained therein. One of those links pointed you to a long-published article about how Stallman is not a spokesperson for "open source" and he has pointed out significant differences between his older movement—the free software movement—and the younger open source movement which focuses on development methodology (and is therefore willing to install and recommend nonfree software). That newer essay updates an older essay which has been published in print as well as online.
Also, developing and distributing free software doesn't always mean publishing GNU GPL-covered programs. There are lots of other free software licenses from which to choose depending on the details of the program and one's goals in distributing the program.
Slashdot Mirror
Addressing both your comment and the grandparent comment: this distinction of allowing non-free software is part of what distinguishes the older free software movement from the younger open source movement. RMS has been talking and writing about this critical distinction for years.
Consider the following from "Why Open Source misses the point of Free Software":
In other words, open source won't endorse software freedom for its own sake. That movement was designed to never raise the issue of software freedom in order to promote a developmental methodology thought to lead to more reliable, more powerful programs. That methodology is fine as far as it goes (everyone likes powerful robust programs) but as we're seeing with the Snowden revelations, that methodology doesn't go far enough. RMS realized this very early on and has been providing ethical counterarguments since the open source movement began (older essay, newer essay).
This difference explains what we're seeing in the very different approaches taken in Linus Torvalds' fork of the Linux kernel versus the GNU Linux-libre fork of the Linux kernel. Linux-libre's distinction is that this fork removes the blobs that come with the Torvalds fork of the Linux kernel. Torvalds includes nonfree code meant to make the kernel run on more hardware which places a high value on convenience at the cost of software freedom. Linux-libre values software freedom instead. As a result, Linux-libre doesn't run on as much hardware and might not take advantage of everything modern hardware can do, but one gains a system they are allowed to fully inspect, share, and modify—software freedom. Linux-libre lets users make sure the software does only what that user wants that program to do. RMS, as recently as his recent responses to /. questions, encouraged readers to reverse engineer hardware in order to fully document hardware ("The parts of Linux we need to replace are the nonfree parts, the "binary blobs". [...] The main work necessary to replace the blobs is reverse engineering to determine the specs of the peripherals those blobs are used in. That's a tremendously important job -- please join in if you can."). This work leads to increased support for fully free operating systems, including fully free support in Linux-libre.
Increased security is one of the things you get with the pursuit of software freedom for its own sake. I think RMS very much recognizes the security enhancements that come along with Linux-libre and why his org
The objection you seem to have missed is that proprietors treat users badly without the user's ability to effectively improve the program for their own needs (even by hiring someone to do this work on their behalf). So better to rejecting non-free software on ethical grounds. Whether spies have used the power of a proprietary Angry Birds is a weak response compared to asking whether anybody should have to choose a potential loss of privacy to play a videogame. Tracking users (no matter how) without their explicit knowledge is something people don't know about and, when they learn about it, don't like. It's a shame you have such personal anger toward Stallman that you refuse to convey understanding his points. Your namecalling ("bearded zealot", "mooching") and lame counterarguments like "There's more effective ways for snoops to get info than through angry birds" run the risk of reading as tacit acceptance of RMS's points without giving him due credit for bringing those points to the public.
We don't know who can get data from RMS's Loonsong MIPS machine but paying attention to these issues and using what's available to practical effect is leading by example; a far more respectful approach which complaining and namecalling just can't beat.
It's so convenient to argue against yourself isn't it? No need to ask him what he actually thinks (his email address is readily available) or read any of his many essays. You might be particularly interested in a list of surveillance examples found in proprietary software including one pertinant description for a program you just mentioned—"Angry Birds spies for companies, and the NSA takes advantage to spy through it too.".
It's not RMS's fault that he was asked similarly un"interesting" questions that each came with the repetitive prejudices (asking about the younger movement he didn't start instead of the older movement he did start, framing issues in terms of amorality and not questioning what non-free software entails). Looking at the questions, it's clear that they were asked by people who didn't bother to read the essays linked to in the original /. story soliciting questions for him. I remember when /. used to criticize behavior like that. A lot of what people bump into are issues where software freedom has a practical response that can liberate users from dependency on untrustworthy programmers, but thanks to an amoral stance on these issues the public is never taught to see how a technocratic/developmental stance (open source, focus on features and price, focus on slick interfaces) can run contrary to their interests (preserving their privacy, retaining and exercising their civil liberties, not being beaten or killed). It's convenient to see a movie when you wish, but certainly not as important as avoiding being spied upon everywhere you go.
That's probably because you haven't been paying much attention to what Edward Snowden has been telling us, nor have you been thinking deeply about the consequences of those revelations. I suggest watching Eben Moglen's insightful talks on this topic for some historical perspective on how "one-dimensional" your take is and how much under threat the entire world is these days. That is, if you're not too busy dismissing Moglen for being an FSF lawyer and former FSF board member who deeply appreciates software freedom for its own sake.
I'd be more likely to believe you on this claim if the rest of your opinions were better defended. But it's awfully hard to take someone too seriously when they're so easily dissuaded by stylistic matters over substantive examination of pertinant issues.
At least Firefox can be altered to become what you want it to be because Firefox respect's a users software freedom. Far more important than vagaries like "fast" and "not bloated" is how a program treats its users. Proprietary browsers leave users no opportunity for improving the program. Thus security issues in proprietary programs go unfixed and are exploited for years. This, in turn, allows others to invade people's computers and leaves users helpless. This is exactly what happened with Apple's iTunes for over 3 years. I would not be surprised to learn that software proprietors including Microsoft, Google, and Apple are doing similar things with proprietary web browser programs as well.
So while I like trustworthy programs like other computer users, I know that I can't ascertain the trustworthiness of proprietary programs like Microsoft's Internet Explorer, Apple's Safari, and Google's Chrome. The extent to which any of them are built from software that respects my software freedom is irrelevant because proprietary programs and their updates are essentially black boxes. I can't possibly inspect or fix all of the software I use, but I can put myself in a position where I stand to benefit from the improvements a lot of programmers make by exclusively running software that respects my freedom to run, inspect, share, and modify—free software—freedoms I value in their own right.
I'm sure many serious flaws in many free programs have been around for a long time, some flaws longer than this flaw. But free software advocates make no guarantees you'll get secure code. If you'd like that guarantee perhaps you can purchase a programmer's time to get that; perhaps you should have hired a programmer to inspect this code on your behalf, looking for security issues, raising them upstream, and fixing them for you (software freedom gives you these options as I mentioned before). Your objection really stems from your belief that open source and free software are discussing the issue starting from the same underlying philosophy.
The philosophies are not the same therefore the two movements arrive at different conclusions: Structurally speaking, programmers know that malware can be easily hidden in proprietary programs yet it's rare to find malware in free software for the same reason—those who forbid users from inspecting, sharing, and modifying source code can more easily sneak malware into the code. Focusing on price and technical issues (such as features, speed, and reliability) isn't bad but doesn't go nearly far enough. More and more users understand that society needs more than framing the debate around a developmental methodology as the open source movement does. So, the more one values catching bad code early (as we all, rightly, do) the more everyone should value software freedom for its own sake. Software freedom lets us increase the odds for using better code by treating computer users respectfully through granting and securing our permission to inspect, share, and modify that free code. All computer users deserve software freedom.
Apple's code was based on something "open source" but that does Apple's users no good because of what I already said: Apple's distributed code to its users are proprietary. Better to have the alleged "mess" to track down than to know there's no point in tracking down anything because what you'll find is something you're not allowed to inspect, modify, or share. Here you're really highlighting the difference between free software and open source: open source advocates don't want to talk about how people ought to treat one another and are eager to distract discussion away from ethics by conflating freedom with hassle. Free software activists endorse freedom as a good unto itself because it lets us treat one another with decency and respect.
Apple may have known about the issue for a while and not talked about it until it could release whatever proprietary blob alleges to be a fix. Apple's users might have known Apple's software was buggy too, but not been able to do anything about fixing Apple's code, since that's the nature of proprietary software. Apple has sat on exploitable security issues before; in that case, governments used that iTunes security hole to invade people's computers (as RMS points out). So in that case, apparently multiple people knew iTunes was a security problem.
Just because your six year old hasn't been taught the value of software freedom doesn't make software freedom worthless. I'm guessing there are a lot of things a six year old has not yet come to value which they will later learn they should have valued all along. Perhaps teaching your six year old to value substantive issues like ethical understanding of how people treat one another would be a good start. And while I certainly wish anyone with a fix would have shared that fix, they're under no obligation to share in the free software world and I doubt they'll be convinced to by your namecalling. But the situation is still better that anyone could have fixed this (and possibly some did) rather than having no option but hoping the proprietor takes an interest.
So when Apple's proprietary encryption software suffered a problem, Apple users could do nothing but wait for Apple to deliver a fix; there's nobody else that are allowed to fix Apple's proprietary software but Apple. And when that fix ostensibly arrived, Apple users had to hope it wasn't bundled with some malware too (as is often in proprietary software).
This bug was caught during an audit—"The vulnerability was discovered during an audit of GnuTLS for Red Hat.". Nobody but the proprietor can audit proprietary software. But with free software, users have the freedom to audit the code they run, patch that code, and run their patched code; users can choose to fix bugs themselves or get someone else to fix bugs for them. And users don't have to always trust the same people to do work on their behalf. Users can also choose to wait for a fix to be distributed, and then they can choose to check that fix to make sure it doesn't contain malware. For all we know some users have long spotted and fixed this bug in GNUTLS. Since all complex software has bugs bugs are unavoidable. We're better off depending on people we choose to trust. Software freedom is better for its own sake.
Because DRM denies Keurig owners their ability to use their devices freely. I certainly agree that buying a Keurig sends the wrong message, and we should not do this, but we can take an active role in not buying DRM'd devices and services including this coffee maker. This coffee maker is a nice entry to understanding the value of freedom; not necessary for coffee but also a teaching opportunity. History tells us that we are better off to fight for freedom for what we have and need than to idly hope that someone else will improve one's lot and eventually respect our freedoms. Ethical evaluations can't be understood as personal preferences as you're trying to do here. As has been pointed out on /. before, "arguments are always based on values" and your values and mine do not agree.
Letting the market handle things led to the situation we now face with DRM preventing people from making choices (highlighting how freedom of choice is so often a scam). This isn't the first instance of DRM providing no benefit to the user (eBook DRM leads to publishers and distributors taking away legally obtained copies of DRM'd eBooks like Amazon.com did in 2012 or making it possible to electronically enforce restrictions one could never get away with in paper books should the DRM proprietor so choose). The issue is not whether a proprietor has or hasn't used DRM to accomplish such a thing, the issue is that DRM grants someone or some organization the power to enforce restrictions like these, restrictions that should not exist. DefectiveByDesign.org doesn't seem to have problems coming up with plenty of other examples of how customers lose with DRM. DRM examples show us that word does not "get around pretty quickly" nor do monopolies "die a miserable death". Today there are people defending the idea of making it easier to get DRM into HTML5 instead of rejecting it out of hand based on principled opposition and experience. If things were as bad as you claim no business would bother with DRM, DRM would be rejected out of hand.
I think this situation is much better understood by looking at this in terms of a minimum acceptable interoperability; something akin to environmental law (recognizing one can't negotiate everything they need on their own so we need to work together to set acceptable standards that let us get what we need) instead of a transactional basis (one-on-one interactions where each user is on their own to negotiate a better arrangement where it's likely no one user can muster the resources to effectively challenge the proprietor). Owner's rights should enter here as well: one should be able to use whatever they want with their Keurig device including less expensive beverage pods than what Keurig sells.
I'd like to read what you have to say about free software programs for nonfree operating systems. Do you find that free software programs for nonfree operating systems help migrate users to freedom, reinforce a user's dependency on nonfree operating systems, or something else?
I'm guessing that, of the two, one can't easily avoid being spied on either way. So there's no need to take on the unethical, user-subjugating proprietary software of Skype as well. But the software involved in a traditional phone call isn't under the user's control and doesn't require the caller to take on nonfree software. There's no need to restrict our consideration to just these two options, however. As Skype is perceived as a viable alternative to the traditional phone call, Skype shows us that a free software program that respects our privacy could supplant Skype. What we need is an easily-used totally free software calling program that can encrypt calls at the ends of the call so even if the call data is recorded it can't easily be decrypted for a very long time. It would be even better if there was some way of masking the parties involved the call as well so the data describing the call is unclear as well.
If that's the case (no source is provided) that would indeed suggest better things about Stallman than Assange. Something to remember the next time someone tries to downplay software freedom by pointing out how uncomfortable they are with Stallman. What is the source for this?
The difference in philosophy can have radically different outcomes seen most clearly in the case of powerful, reliable proprietary software (adoption/recommendation for open source proponents versus rejection/replacement for free software activists is a starkly different outcome). Richard Stallman's essays on this topic point out this different reaction and the difference in philosophy that leads to the different reaction (older essay, newer essay). But those essays highlight all the more that the post to which I initially responded in this subthread is attacking the messenger (Richard Stallman): the /. thread where that post would have been on-topic is still available for posts. Moderating that post up is moderating up an ad hominem attack.
There's nothing wrong with raising and defending skeptical views, but there's been no serious defense of those views even in other followups. This thread only offers more vague attacks plus a thin layer of congratulations for working together (which, as you point out in your /. post and Stallman points out in the aforementioned newer essay, "people from the free software movement and the open source camp often work together on practical projects such as software development"). Any skepticism would have been far more fruitful and honestly raised if it was raised with the one person who could have addressed the many misperceptions in the posts. I encourage the original poster to raise those issues head-on from the most authoritative source available—the man himself in his own words.
Please do be specific about how Stallman is "too divisive" and somehow responsible for what you see as problems. Your claims are so vague it's hard to know if you are attacking the messenger instead of conveying that you understand what is being spoken about in the differences between the free software and open source movements. Quotes and references to published material would help you in what appears to be a vastly overrated post.
It seems reasonable to me to expect that any proprietor who wants to withhold software freedom from users give up that power when the program enters the public domain; code escrow as Stallman describes sounds like a viable solution to me and a perfectly fair exchange for the public. What's not reasonable is the status quo which is endless power over the user.
Source? Evidence? Cygnus didn't seem to have trouble finding customers for GCC support.
I don't know if that's supposed to mean the program is free software or not. If the software is nonfree, then there's no compromise that is a substitute for software freedom. Getting data out of the program won't give users an idea of what's going on when the program runs. If the program is nonfree, malware may be running. Or maybe features the users want aren't implementable by people they trust.
I'm not sure what post of Stallman's you're referring to because you linked to nothing and quoted nothing. Your statement is without a clear basis in anything he said, and therefore seems specious. I'll assume you're referring to his post on the GCC mailing list in which he says:
So when you follow up with:
you seem to have no serious issue to raise, just name-calling. What part of what he said to the GCC list convinces you that Stallman "seemed to say quality of software [...] isn't important" as if that was to be a seriously considered alternative? For many years, GNU programs have been known as considerably powerful, GCC being one of them. Given the totality of what Stallman has been saying since 1984 it seems so much more reasonable to conclude that Stallman believes software freedom is more important than technical superiority that I suspect you're trolling.
Code quality is an achievement won with hard work, to be sure, but the fight for securing software freedom has historically taken considerable time in addition to any technical improvements needed. When people's attention is diverted away from ethics, the community suffers. This is true in every field of endeavor, software development is no exception. As the open source movement was designed to not talk about how people treat each other (1, 2), we need a careful and thorough rejection of the notion that programmers can afford to ply their talents without regard for how helping proprietors hurts our community. The free software movement gives us that ethics-based critique and it also gives us practical software with which to further improve our community.
You make it sound as if technical difficulty in changing BIOS software is the issue, and I'm not sure if you realize that is not so. Software freedom has to do with an ethically based argument about giving permission to legally inspect, share, and modify published software (and, ideally, securing those freedoms to make sure nobody takes them away later). With BIOS code, as with any proprietary software, the distinction is not technical capability. The distinction centers on who is legally allowed to do what.
BIOSes prior to the arrival of Coreboot weren't all "impossible to change". BIOS distributors demonstrated that by making BIOS changes and distributing new proprietary BIOS software packages. Users were offered proprietary binaries that they could run—an ordinary installer program that allows non-technical users to easily install a new BIOS on the system.
But users were not given a copy of BIOS source code, users were not given permission to distribute the BIOS, and users were not given permission to modify the BIOS software. These users were subjugated to the BIOS developer's rule so long as they ran that BIOS code: users had no freedom to help themselves or their community. Coreboot changes this because Coreboot respects a user's software freedom, but the difference here is one of licensing. With Coreboot any user willing to learn what Coreboot does may inspect, share, and modify Coreboot; freedoms those same users don't have with a proprietary BIOS.
RMS isn't in this for popularity, he's pushing to get society to respect user's software freedom because that's what's ethical. Besides, relative to ethical observations and considered ethical thought, systemd is a minor technical change. Software changes come along from time to time and will continue to do so even replacing systemd. For all we know GNU/Hurd will offer something comparably suitable for everyday use.
Sorry, but there's no need to guess what he'd say because he has published his thoughts on this long ago. Perhaps his position has changed, but if it had changed I'd expect an update to the aforementioned article at its current location, not an announcement of anything new on /..
He also proposes a reasonable fix:
I can only guess neither you nor the original poster tried looking up keywords in a search engine (like "stallman copyright pirate party") to find the article. Also, perhaps neither of you understand that Stallman is not a member of the open source movement nor has he ever been. Thus it is not his interest to frame this issue in terms of a "closed source" anything (to use the original questioner's words). Stallman explains his position on the difference between his movement, the free software movement, and the younger proprietary-friendly open source movement in a pair of articles which have been published for many years (older article, newer article) and in just about every talk I've ever heard him give. In fact, the intro to this /. story pointed you to one of these articles.
I don't know about "Internet.org" specifically but as for using anything tied to Facebook, Instagram, and similar services: Try watching any of his recent talks, from the most recent talks to the talks dating back about a year or three. He tells you right at the top of the talk what he thinks of Facebook, Instagram, and the like—he dares to call them by their proper name: surveillance engines—and he asks users to not participate by not uploading copies of his talks and photos with him to these services. You can also read his personal website on Facebook detailing many reasons to avoid Facebook. I imagine any other service that works similarly ("Google+", for example) will receive a comparable critique.
It seems unlikely to me that any program started by these organizations will be anything other than come-ons to lose one's privacy to these data collection companies.
There are free software web browser add-ons you can install on your free software web browser: Priv3, NoScript, and various cookie editors/filters which will help you deal with the monitoring various services use when you get an offer to be tracked with a "like" button or similar thing. There's more work to be done on this ground, to be sure, but this is a good start.
I think a good speaker's charisma is a distracting issue; to frame the value of a good speaker in terms of charisma is to not spend time focusing on the veracity and importance of the message that speaker has to convey. Charisma is too often used to hide a hideous message; metaphorically candy-coating anti-social messages. Charismsa is also used by the lazy listener: why bother parsing what the speaker actually says when one can get away with superficially evaluating charisma in a 5-second sound bite?
It's easy to get around this distraction by reading a transcript of what the speaker has to say instead of hearing or watching their performance. Reading their books or papers is also very informative because that medium affords a writer the time to consider what they want to say, a luxury one doesn't have answering questions in realtime.
There are some confusions in what you're asking. It isn't Stallman or the FSF's job to supply anyone with a business model. It's the FSF's job to lay out the ethical argument to defend their case that nonfree software is unjust and that we all deserve software freedom. Put differently, and not to equate nonfree software with slavery (slavery is more oppressive than nonfree software), but ethical arguments against slavery don't have an obligation to provide alternative labor sources to exploit. Ethical arguments against slavery have to lay out why people should be treated with human dignity as equals and not as slaves. With that, there are some approaches you should consider:
Stallman is not going to address your reference to "open source" in the way you expect because he is not a representative of the open source movement, nor has he ever been. Perhaps you would have done well to read the summary /. provided on this story and the links contained therein. One of those links pointed you to a long-published article about how Stallman is not a spokesperson for "open source" and he has pointed out significant differences between his older movement—the free software movement—and the younger open source movement which focuses on development methodology (and is therefore willing to install and recommend nonfree software). That newer essay updates an older essay which has been published in print as well as online.
Also, developing and distributing free software doesn't always mean publishing GNU GPL-covered programs. There are lots of other free software licenses from which to choose depending on the details of the program and one's goals in distributing the program.