5 ms·

Foresight has been essential in this. Without Stallman's foresight of the need for public domain open source software, there would only be proprietary software

by deepnet 10y ago

Foresight has been essential in this. Without Stallman's foresight of the need for public domain open source software, there would only be proprietary software, all subject to PRISM. Without the foresight of potential Government's to come the US founding fathers would not have written in such protections as still exist today. Before Snowden there were many that suspected but now everyone knows. >Um. Who thought this? Snowden himself: "I had too much faith that the government really would do no wrong. I was drinking the Kool-Aid in the post-9/11 moment. I believed the claims of government, that this was a just cause, a moral cause, and we don't need to listen to these people who say we broke this law or that law." pre Snowden this was unopposable, the NSA's James Clapper lied to Ron Wyden in Congress about mass surveillance.

nickpsecurity 10y ago
"Without Stallman's foresight of the need for public domain open source software, there would only be proprietary software, all subject to PRISM." Or proprietary, shared-source software provided by nonprofits or companies in jurisdictions that aren't surveillance heavy. No, you don't need FOSS to avoid PRISM lol. It has its advantages in resisting totalitarianism for sure but you don't actually need them. More of author or organization's intent and licensing that really matters. Many models available. Btw, the first, secure-ish mainframe OS (MCP of Tron fame) was sold in source form by Burroughs with fixes/updates allowed to be submitted. In 1963. High-assurance stuff under Orange Book similarly had to deliver source that was reviewed and provided a way to know you had same copy. Just to support my claim that there's proprietary models for it but most just wanted money instead. ;)
- deepnet 10y ago
  There was a cultural change when Bell was broken up and UNIX became less laissez-faire, a paradigm shift. Software became valuable and not just bundled with hardware. Stallman saw it coming early enough that he had completed his GNU Free toolchain in time for Torvalds to use it. A developer community is less likely to arise when your modifications can be closed and you cannot fork. If your business runs in someone elses walled garden it can be taken away. Without the GPL's four freedoms we would not have the rich public domain of code we have today - a legally protected commons. Before the GPL the public domain suffered from the tradgedy of the commons, a fantastic legal hack.
  - nickpsecurity 10y ago
    I mostly agree with that. It's not what you said, though, which went further and is what I responded to. Stallman and FOSS fans like to go from those contributions to unsopported claims where no proprietary can have a single property of OSS. Yours implied only FOSS could've resisted a secret, US directive which was 100% untrue given existence of closed, non-US products. I preempted your likely counter by pointing out proprietary can come with source too for anti-subversion and actually reached highest form of security possible. We're still waiting on FOSS model to do that. Nobody has. Fortunately, the cathedral builders in industry and good CompSci are sometimes open-sourcing stuff after the fact. RISC-V, GenodeOS, seL4, NaCl, etc.
    - deepnet 10y ago
      Fair point and well preempted. Proprietary software can offer some freedom but it does not ensure it will remain, nor does it offer the full 4 freedoms required. What you say is not technically incorrect, but practically Google, Apple & Microsoft were all secretly in NSA's PRISM. A large corporate entity is subject to state pressure in a different way than a public good. A corporation must profit, new markets must be entered, their regimes placated at the expense of users. Ownership is a single point of failure. A proper security audit is only possible if one can compile that source with ones own toolchain or get the binary from a source you trust. One must test and make modifications, otherwise the binary only purports to be from exactly that source. So you must in the end trust the companies, and trust them to release patches promptly, not delay them at the behest of the NSA (as per Snowden). PGP and SSH are both provably secure. Security is dynamic, FOSS is faster at releasing patches and not removing features while updating security. If a patch removes an essential feature and security is bundled with it, this is problematic. If you cannot use distributed community modifications then you are often out of luck. Companies change hands, policies change, you may be secure today but they sell your data tomorrow. Free software forks at disagreements so everyone is happy. Free software cannot be taken from you by law - it is public domain.
      - nickpsecurity 10y ago
        "Ownership is a single point of failure." Ownership can be a single point of failure but someone owns copyright to GPL code, too. Trick is protections in licensing. A recent conversation found that the real issue, if you get down to it, is in distribution: free distribution and network effects is strongest benefit of FOSS over proprietary, shared-source model which may have every other benefit. "A proper security audit is only possible if one can compile that source with ones own toolchain or get the binary from a source you trust. One must test and make modifications, otherwise the binary only purports to be from exactly that source." Realize that I said proprietary, shared source. You have the source of whatever you need. One can also do something like Wirth's Pascal/P where runtime is P-code and some I/O shims. Everything else in toolchain was compiled to it. Result was amateurs ported whole thing to 70+ architectures while having to reimplement just one, tiny part. Interesting enough, System/38 design did same thing at microcode or asm level with successful port to POWER with many apps needing no source recompile. "So you must in the end trust the companies, and trust them to release patches promptly, not delay them at the behest of the NSA (as per Snowden)." This problem exists for FOSS, too, so don't kid yourself. The vast majority of FOSS isn't Linux: it's barely maintained and many ignore bug reports for long periods. The average is in favor of FOSS if it's major projects vs proprietary software but individually it ranges from total shit to excellence. Totally dependent on contributors or maintainers. "PGP and SSH are both provably secure. " They're not due to their CVE history. They just got really good with GPG foiling NSA after years of improvements with a narrow focus for GPG. GEMSOS, PSOS, and seL4 are provably secure. World of difference in how they're built. None were created with a FOSS model. "If a patch removes an essential feature and security is bundled with it, this is problematic. If you cannot use distributed community modifications then you are often out of luck." " Free software forks at disagreements so everyone is happy. " It's a risk but can be countered. The counter I did in another discussion was a shared-source license that allowed fixes, modifications, and even distribution to other customers. You perpetually keep what you licensed if you keep paying optionally with a limit on per organization charges. You and a group can do anything you want with that commercial code if you're paying. Btw, the real hacker OS was provided with some (but not enough) of those attributes with features UNIX still can't fully match: http://www.symbolics-dks.com/Genera-why-1.htm http://www.symbolics-dks.com/Genera-why-1.htm "cannot be taken from you by law - it is public domain." It's actually not: it's copywritten software licensed with specific terms that enforce things on you. Public domain has no copyrights or restrictions. This is a problem or a feature of GPL vs public domain depending on who you ask. Only thing both protect almost 100% is widespread distribution which any paid model might... might... always reduce.
0xCMP 10y ago
I kid you not. Stallman looked crazy in my eyes before Snowden. Even my "paranoid" perspective on all these things pre-snowden where never close to true Stallman "crazy" (or so I thought before..) Now I want to use Emacs. I want to use everything FSF if possible. I'm no where close. There is a lot for me to do to get there. But I'm hoping I will because soon that may be our only hope. > NSA's James Clapper lied to Ron Wyden in Congress about mass surveillance. And isn't that crazy? Try lying in front of congress and not go to jail. Such corruption. Completely institutionalized corruption of the processes and the power of congress to check the power of the NSA.
- deepnet 10y ago
  Yes, Free software is not only your security but an investment in everyones security, rich or poor for generations to come.
- randommodnar 10y ago
  > Now I want to use Emacs Whoa, whoa, let's not go that far.
- chillingeffect 10y ago
  Perfect timing: New LTS of Ubuntu this month! Jump in!

by deepnet 10y ago

nickpsecurity 10y ago

"Without Stallman's foresight of the need for public domain open source software, there would only be proprietary software, all subject to PRISM." Or proprietary, shared-source software provided by nonprofits or companies in jurisdictions that aren't surveillance heavy. No, you don't need FOSS to avoid PRISM lol. It has its advantages in resisting totalitarianism for sure but you don't actually need them. More of author or organization's intent and licensing that really matters. Many models available. Btw, the first, secure-ish mainframe OS (MCP of Tron fame) was sold in source form by Burroughs with fixes/updates allowed to be submitted. In 1963. High-assurance stuff under Orange Book similarly had to deliver source that was reviewed and provided a way to know you had same copy. Just to support my claim that there's proprietary models for it but most just wanted money instead. ;)

deepnet 10y ago
There was a cultural change when Bell was broken up and UNIX became less laissez-faire, a paradigm shift. Software became valuable and not just bundled with hardware. Stallman saw it coming early enough that he had completed his GNU Free toolchain in time for Torvalds to use it. A developer community is less likely to arise when your modifications can be closed and you cannot fork. If your business runs in someone elses walled garden it can be taken away. Without the GPL's four freedoms we would not have the rich public domain of code we have today - a legally protected commons. Before the GPL the public domain suffered from the tradgedy of the commons, a fantastic legal hack.
- nickpsecurity 10y ago
  I mostly agree with that. It's not what you said, though, which went further and is what I responded to. Stallman and FOSS fans like to go from those contributions to unsopported claims where no proprietary can have a single property of OSS. Yours implied only FOSS could've resisted a secret, US directive which was 100% untrue given existence of closed, non-US products. I preempted your likely counter by pointing out proprietary can come with source too for anti-subversion and actually reached highest form of security possible. We're still waiting on FOSS model to do that. Nobody has. Fortunately, the cathedral builders in industry and good CompSci are sometimes open-sourcing stuff after the fact. RISC-V, GenodeOS, seL4, NaCl, etc.
  - deepnet 10y ago
    Fair point and well preempted. Proprietary software can offer some freedom but it does not ensure it will remain, nor does it offer the full 4 freedoms required. What you say is not technically incorrect, but practically Google, Apple & Microsoft were all secretly in NSA's PRISM. A large corporate entity is subject to state pressure in a different way than a public good. A corporation must profit, new markets must be entered, their regimes placated at the expense of users. Ownership is a single point of failure. A proper security audit is only possible if one can compile that source with ones own toolchain or get the binary from a source you trust. One must test and make modifications, otherwise the binary only purports to be from exactly that source. So you must in the end trust the companies, and trust them to release patches promptly, not delay them at the behest of the NSA (as per Snowden). PGP and SSH are both provably secure. Security is dynamic, FOSS is faster at releasing patches and not removing features while updating security. If a patch removes an essential feature and security is bundled with it, this is problematic. If you cannot use distributed community modifications then you are often out of luck. Companies change hands, policies change, you may be secure today but they sell your data tomorrow. Free software forks at disagreements so everyone is happy. Free software cannot be taken from you by law - it is public domain.
    - nickpsecurity 10y ago
      "Ownership is a single point of failure." Ownership can be a single point of failure but someone owns copyright to GPL code, too. Trick is protections in licensing. A recent conversation found that the real issue, if you get down to it, is in distribution: free distribution and network effects is strongest benefit of FOSS over proprietary, shared-source model which may have every other benefit. "A proper security audit is only possible if one can compile that source with ones own toolchain or get the binary from a source you trust. One must test and make modifications, otherwise the binary only purports to be from exactly that source." Realize that I said proprietary, shared source. You have the source of whatever you need. One can also do something like Wirth's Pascal/P where runtime is P-code and some I/O shims. Everything else in toolchain was compiled to it. Result was amateurs ported whole thing to 70+ architectures while having to reimplement just one, tiny part. Interesting enough, System/38 design did same thing at microcode or asm level with successful port to POWER with many apps needing no source recompile. "So you must in the end trust the companies, and trust them to release patches promptly, not delay them at the behest of the NSA (as per Snowden)." This problem exists for FOSS, too, so don't kid yourself. The vast majority of FOSS isn't Linux: it's barely maintained and many ignore bug reports for long periods. The average is in favor of FOSS if it's major projects vs proprietary software but individually it ranges from total shit to excellence. Totally dependent on contributors or maintainers. "PGP and SSH are both provably secure. " They're not due to their CVE history. They just got really good with GPG foiling NSA after years of improvements with a narrow focus for GPG. GEMSOS, PSOS, and seL4 are provably secure. World of difference in how they're built. None were created with a FOSS model. "If a patch removes an essential feature and security is bundled with it, this is problematic. If you cannot use distributed community modifications then you are often out of luck." " Free software forks at disagreements so everyone is happy. " It's a risk but can be countered. The counter I did in another discussion was a shared-source license that allowed fixes, modifications, and even distribution to other customers. You perpetually keep what you licensed if you keep paying optionally with a limit on per organization charges. You and a group can do anything you want with that commercial code if you're paying. Btw, the real hacker OS was provided with some (but not enough) of those attributes with features UNIX still can't fully match: http://www.symbolics-dks.com/Genera-why-1.htm http://www.symbolics-dks.com/Genera-why-1.htm "cannot be taken from you by law - it is public domain." It's actually not: it's copywritten software licensed with specific terms that enforce things on you. Public domain has no copyrights or restrictions. This is a problem or a feature of GPL vs public domain depending on who you ask. Only thing both protect almost 100% is widespread distribution which any paid model might... might... always reduce.

0xCMP 10y ago

I kid you not. Stallman looked crazy in my eyes before Snowden. Even my "paranoid" perspective on all these things pre-snowden where never close to true Stallman "crazy" (or so I thought before..) Now I want to use Emacs. I want to use everything FSF if possible. I'm no where close. There is a lot for me to do to get there. But I'm hoping I will because soon that may be our only hope. > NSA's James Clapper lied to Ron Wyden in Congress about mass surveillance. And isn't that crazy? Try lying in front of congress and not go to jail. Such corruption. Completely institutionalized corruption of the processes and the power of congress to check the power of the NSA.

deepnet 10y ago
Yes, Free software is not only your security but an investment in everyones security, rich or poor for generations to come.
randommodnar 10y ago
> Now I want to use Emacs Whoa, whoa, let's not go that far.
chillingeffect 10y ago
Perfect timing: New LTS of Ubuntu this month! Jump in!