5 ms·

What new battles have emerged that GNU and FSF are not paying attention to? Also, GNU is not RMS, and RMS is not GNU.

by t0nt0n 8y ago

ChristianBundy 8y ago
The FSF is (or seems to be) an extension of RMS, and the same argument could be made for GNU[0]. [0]: https://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/753646/a6ebb50040c5862c/ https://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/753646/a6ebb50040c5862c/
astrodust 8y ago
While they were harassing Linksys about GPL the whole IoT thing happened and now we're living in a world full of trashy Linux-based devices that are a hazard to society. Sure, you can get the source code to your internet-based webcam, but because it can't be easily patched, it can also be hijacked by a couple of high-school kids in Alaska so they can sabotage their Minecraft server hosting competitors. So good job. As long as RMS is such a prominent figure the GNU/FSF organization there's no separation.
- elago 8y ago
  "the whole IoT thing" was ever Stallman's responsibility to stop in the first place? he wants to champion free software, not every just cause under the sun. IoT devices shipping with insecure configurations is a "failure" of an infosec champion/thought-leader to step up and save us. On the free software front, RMS contribution are mind blowing to me. I'd be proud if I can ever contribute a fraction of what he did.
  - astrodust 8y ago
    The contributions of the GNU team are considerable. RMS in particular? Eh. The IoT thing was a perfect opportunity to step in, step up, and show some leadership. Billions of devices owned by tens or hundreds of millions of people, all running open-source software! Instead we get this miserable hell because of his laser focus on licensing instead of responsible software. Infosec, to their credit, were raising alarm bells from the beginning but nobody had to listen to them because they don't control anything. GNU, however, does. If they'd extended GPL to include provisions for ensuring that the GPL software on it can be updated in a timely and secure manner, life would be a lot better for people.
    - mindB 8y ago
      Isn't that exactly what v3 of the GPL does?
      - astrodust 8y ago
        That just prevents the vendor from locking down the software. It doesn't force them to update it in a timely manner.
        pxc 8y ago
        And if the software weren't locked down, anyone (users, communities, other vendors) could step in to provide such updates. That's not some hypothetical, either— compare the rates of OS updates in projects like LineageOS to to the distributions of Android shipped with most phones. If vendors couldn't TiVo-ize, there would absolutely be communities and downstream vendors stepping in to provide devices with regular updates. Because the devices are locked down, that can't happen. And what do you expect the FSF to do? Out-lobby consumer electronics manufacturers to pass laws requiring some kind of security update guarantee? Even if they succeeded, could we call the result empowerment? Getting out from under the thumb of the manufacturer and actually _owning_ the things you own is the point, not the theoretical promise of recourse if the party which practically retains all of their power over you can be proven in court to have misbehaved, only after the abuse has taken place. This is absolutely the same fight, and if anything the approach you're arguing for is more conciliatory, not more ‘relevant’.
        astrodust 8y ago
        Theoretically being able to update your device and actually being able to update your device are two different things. There's going to be a billion variants on every little IoT device in the future and all the best intentions and enthusiasm on the part of the free software community will not be enough to provide patches to all of them. This is something that's the responsibility of the vendor, and the GNU software license could make that a requirement for using the software. It's not about laws, it's about licensing. If they don't like the license they're free to use someone else's software. Having inexpensive operating system software you can dump on a cheap device without license fees is both a great thing, and also what got us into this IoT hot mess.
- orangeshark 8y ago
  Isn't that what GPL v3 is suppose to cover with what they call "tivoization"? They tried to get the Linux kernel to switch to the GPL v3 but that failed.
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  How is that not purely, 1000% on the makers of the shitty webcams?
  - astrodust 8y ago
    They're compelled to give out the source code, but apart from that they can do pretty much anything else they want with GNU's blessing.
pasabagi 8y ago
I know that RMS is not GNU, but the man is a raging egomaniac - and the way he talks takes credit for basically everything he's come into contact with. Unless I'm underestimating the bounds of possibility for one person's contributions, he uses 'I' in a lot of places it would be fair to say 'we'. (Note, I came to this conclusion after reading about a bunch of his technical accomplishments, which I can see are awesome, even if the obvious megalomania evidently occasionally dampens their effects. I think his work is fantastic, his politics are largely reasonable - but I think his self-obsession is often the driver behind a large amount of damaging and counterproductive behaviour. Politics is the art of compromise - not convincing everybody you're a saint while alienating your natural allies.)
- rauhl 8y ago
  In fairness, he’s correct that Linux is better called GNU/Linux: a Linux kernel really is useless without the GNU userland. I’m not a fan of him personally, and many of his technical decisions have been questionable, but he’s achieved a lot, and the world is better for the FSF’s existence.
  - pasabagi 8y ago
    I'm not sure. Isn't Android proof of a sort that Linux is still worth something without GNU? I wouldn't have any problem with the 'GNU/Linux' idea if it wasn't so obviously part of a greater pattern - when he talks about it, he talks about GNU being the primary contributor - but he typically uses the singular, even when the plural would refer to GNU, and the singular refers to himself. I also think the world is better for the FSF, but I cant help but wonder, what would the world be like if the FSF was headed by somebody who felt it more natural to think in terms of 'we', as opposed to 'I'? Even somebody not nearly as technically accomplished, charismatic, and intelligent? I think ultimately, it's the ideas, of knowledge as the common wealth of humankind, rather than the curious personality of RMS, that gave the GNU project its power - and ultimately, it's the limitations of RMS that hold it back.
    - jcoffland 8y ago

What new battles have emerged that GNU and FSF are not paying attention to? Also, GNU is not RMS, and RMS is not GNU.

by t0nt0n 8y ago

What new battles have emerged that GNU and FSF are not paying attention to? Also, GNU is not RMS, and RMS is not GNU.

The FSF is (or seems to be) an extension of RMS, and the same argument could be made for GNU[0]. [0]: https://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/753646/a6ebb50040c5862c/ https://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/753646/a6ebb50040c5862c/

astrodust 8y ago

While they were harassing Linksys about GPL the whole IoT thing happened and now we're living in a world full of trashy Linux-based devices that are a hazard to society. Sure, you can get the source code to your internet-based webcam, but because it can't be easily patched, it can also be hijacked by a couple of high-school kids in Alaska so they can sabotage their Minecraft server hosting competitors. So good job. As long as RMS is such a prominent figure the GNU/FSF organization there's no separation.

elago 8y ago
"the whole IoT thing" was ever Stallman's responsibility to stop in the first place? he wants to champion free software, not every just cause under the sun. IoT devices shipping with insecure configurations is a "failure" of an infosec champion/thought-leader to step up and save us. On the free software front, RMS contribution are mind blowing to me. I'd be proud if I can ever contribute a fraction of what he did.
- astrodust 8y ago
  The contributions of the GNU team are considerable. RMS in particular? Eh. The IoT thing was a perfect opportunity to step in, step up, and show some leadership. Billions of devices owned by tens or hundreds of millions of people, all running open-source software! Instead we get this miserable hell because of his laser focus on licensing instead of responsible software. Infosec, to their credit, were raising alarm bells from the beginning but nobody had to listen to them because they don't control anything. GNU, however, does. If they'd extended GPL to include provisions for ensuring that the GPL software on it can be updated in a timely and secure manner, life would be a lot better for people.
  - mindB 8y ago
    Isn't that exactly what v3 of the GPL does?
    - astrodust 8y ago
      That just prevents the vendor from locking down the software. It doesn't force them to update it in a timely manner.
      - pxc 8y ago
        And if the software weren't locked down, anyone (users, communities, other vendors) could step in to provide such updates. That's not some hypothetical, either— compare the rates of OS updates in projects like LineageOS to to the distributions of Android shipped with most phones. If vendors couldn't TiVo-ize, there would absolutely be communities and downstream vendors stepping in to provide devices with regular updates. Because the devices are locked down, that can't happen. And what do you expect the FSF to do? Out-lobby consumer electronics manufacturers to pass laws requiring some kind of security update guarantee? Even if they succeeded, could we call the result empowerment? Getting out from under the thumb of the manufacturer and actually _owning_ the things you own is the point, not the theoretical promise of recourse if the party which practically retains all of their power over you can be proven in court to have misbehaved, only after the abuse has taken place. This is absolutely the same fight, and if anything the approach you're arguing for is more conciliatory, not more ‘relevant’.
        astrodust 8y ago
        Theoretically being able to update your device and actually being able to update your device are two different things. There's going to be a billion variants on every little IoT device in the future and all the best intentions and enthusiasm on the part of the free software community will not be enough to provide patches to all of them. This is something that's the responsibility of the vendor, and the GNU software license could make that a requirement for using the software. It's not about laws, it's about licensing. If they don't like the license they're free to use someone else's software. Having inexpensive operating system software you can dump on a cheap device without license fees is both a great thing, and also what got us into this IoT hot mess.
orangeshark 8y ago
Isn't that what GPL v3 is suppose to cover with what they call "tivoization"? They tried to get the Linux kernel to switch to the GPL v3 but that failed.
s73v3r_ 8y ago
How is that not purely, 1000% on the makers of the shitty webcams?
- astrodust 8y ago
  They're compelled to give out the source code, but apart from that they can do pretty much anything else they want with GNU's blessing.

pasabagi 8y ago

I know that RMS is not GNU, but the man is a raging egomaniac - and the way he talks takes credit for basically everything he's come into contact with. Unless I'm underestimating the bounds of possibility for one person's contributions, he uses 'I' in a lot of places it would be fair to say 'we'. (Note, I came to this conclusion after reading about a bunch of his technical accomplishments, which I can see are awesome, even if the obvious megalomania evidently occasionally dampens their effects. I think his work is fantastic, his politics are largely reasonable - but I think his self-obsession is often the driver behind a large amount of damaging and counterproductive behaviour. Politics is the art of compromise - not convincing everybody you're a saint while alienating your natural allies.)

rauhl 8y ago
In fairness, he’s correct that Linux is better called GNU/Linux: a Linux kernel really is useless without the GNU userland. I’m not a fan of him personally, and many of his technical decisions have been questionable, but he’s achieved a lot, and the world is better for the FSF’s existence.
- pasabagi 8y ago
  I'm not sure. Isn't Android proof of a sort that Linux is still worth something without GNU? I wouldn't have any problem with the 'GNU/Linux' idea if it wasn't so obviously part of a greater pattern - when he talks about it, he talks about GNU being the primary contributor - but he typically uses the singular, even when the plural would refer to GNU, and the singular refers to himself. I also think the world is better for the FSF, but I cant help but wonder, what would the world be like if the FSF was headed by somebody who felt it more natural to think in terms of 'we', as opposed to 'I'? Even somebody not nearly as technically accomplished, charismatic, and intelligent? I think ultimately, it's the ideas, of knowledge as the common wealth of humankind, rather than the curious personality of RMS, that gave the GNU project its power - and ultimately, it's the limitations of RMS that hold it back.
  - jcoffland 8y ago