11 ms·

Talking to the Mailman – Interview with Richard Stallman

183 points by clydethefrog 8y ago

randomsearch 8y ago
Bit off topic but recently I have been reading/watching a lot from Jaron Lanier. Lanier used to be a FOSS advocate but has now taken the position that his previous support, and the opinions of RMS, are wrong. Whether you agree or not, Lanier is a smart guy and an eloquent speaker and certainly worth listening to.
Synaesthesia 8y ago
Although he’s very committed to free software and individual freedom ideologically, his arguments for them are quite excellent. I find his political views are very common sense too
- falcor84 8y ago
  Why "although"?
  - snakeboy 8y ago
    I think they meant that he can argue for those principles rationally, even though he has an ideological bias towards them.
    - smadge 8y ago
      It still seems like a strange distinction. Is the implication that RMS did not arrive at his opinions through reasoning?
      - AlexCoventry 8y ago
        Most people use reasoning to justify ideological biases arrived at via emotionally charged experiences.
        drivers99 8y ago
        "The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion" is a book that's good at explaining that. It has changed how I observe other people's strongly held opinions online.
      - mwfunk 8y ago
        He most definitely got started down his path for emotional reasons, he had a sweet gig at MIT and he wanted to ride that train forever. When people at the lab he worked in left to join Symbolics, he was left behind and he has borne that grudge ever since. He has certainly backed up his philosophy since that time with much reasoning and writing, but even his most rational writings seem trapped under the weight of emotions IMO. It’s all good vs. evil, fire and brimstone stuff, he never assumes good faith on the part of those who disagree with him, and has never seen a bridge he didn’t want to burn.
        eric24234 8y ago
        This post gives the impression to the reader that RMS had put his ego first and then rationalized it with fsf philosophy.From what i had read online he was pissed off when the printer manufacturer at MIT stopped sharing the source code to modify the software and he has formed(or thought about it and discovered) his philosophical leanings at that time. Very soon symbolics was formed developing closed source software and he was invited to it. But he believed strongly in his philosophy and was working hard to keep the free software up to date which symbolics was developing. Also the symbolics engineer had told in one of the interviews they were 5 people and RMS single handedly was keeping up with them. So the conclusion i had was he was 5x capable to the symbolics engineers (who are very smart people) and if he was that capable he could have become rich easily, but due to his strong philosophical belief he sacrificed his life for the greater good. If you have the links to the contrary please share.
        ryacko 8y ago
        Open source consultancies exist. RMS could make some living off of open source software. Interestingly, he has no wages from FSF. https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/42888848/201702279349302910/IRS990 https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/428...
        watwut 8y ago
        Based on mailing lists I read, some of those 5 people who RMS single handedly was keeping up with were kind of pissed off about that framing a long after. Kind of ... disagreed. He did not done the same amount of work as them, meaning work on other projects, prototyping, design work etc, through it is true that he could more or less copy functionality of the thing plus minus bugs. Designing it and trying out various ways how to do the thing takes more time then copying the project. I am fully confident in that, because I was porting a couple of projects in the past so I know how much time is saved. Aside everything else, self-glorifying stories about heroic saviors who are single so much better then second smartest person in a room should be treated with suspicion - and it is completely puzzling to me that some people are believed them so easily. Because really, for me to believe in that much of an unusual hero, I would like to have confirmations from other primary sources then just said hero and people who worship him. (That is not to say that he is incapable on the other extreme, absolutely not. But you can be extremely good and still not the god this story is about.)
mitchtbaum 8y ago
>> I’ve found GNU social close to a replacement for Twitter, whereas Diaspora was more like Facebook. > That’s what I gathered. I’m in favor of projects like these, because I know they’re useful for other people, but it wouldn’t fit my lifestyle. I just use email. You can call me the Mailman—as in True Names, Vernor Vinge’s science-fiction story. I really don't get this. Computers are supposed to open the doors to technological and social change, no? Why would anyone drag their feet like this? There are so many things that have come out since email and even more still coming.
- nyolfen 8y ago
  email is fine if you don't enjoy the public performance of social media. they're all messaging systems when it comes down to it. stallman also famously reads webpages by curling and emailing them to himself.
  - throwaway180118 8y ago
    He also eats things he picks off his feet. A perplexing genius.
    - zzo38computer 8y ago
      OK, although that is not relevant to the arguments he is making, I think. (Although I suppose it is still something to say, perhaps? But I have not seen that elsewhere anyways so do not know if it is true or not, but anyways it is irrelevant is what I am saying.)
- loseyourslinky 8y ago
  He clearly values privacy very highly, and using a social media network, even a free one means giving up some of your privacy. I doubt Stallman cares much about this, but there also is a very real effect of people competing with each other on social media to show more and more artificial happiness and consumerism in their lives. Thirdly, most of GNU development is still done via mailing list, if your using email for all your work, why not use it socially as well?
saagarjha 8y ago
Just a couple of comments as I read through this: > Non-free, proprietary software is also much more likely to be malware—to contain malicious functionalities, of which there are many kinds. Non-free programs can spy on the users, report on them. Many are designed specifically to restrict what users can do—that’s their purpose. I think this is a mischaracterization, since these things apply to free software as well. The difference is that it is usually much easier to detect when such things are happening, and modify the program so that it no longer does these things. > Another form of malicious functionality is tying the program to a specific remote server Again, this doesn’t seem to me to be a “free software” argument. The reason this doesn’t usually happen with free software is that there is no central entity that controls the software, whereas with non-free software one company/server/person can control their products and “backdoor” them. > If a program is written in Swift, you can now install it yourself from source code. This is not quite true. I can do the same for a program written in Objective-C as well, and I can still write an app in Swift and send you a compiled binary for you to install. Perhaps Stallman was talking about Swift Playgrounds, but even here there are issues: you cannot necessarily change the code on your device itself, and the environment that your code runs in is much more restrictive. > free software is something businesses can use and develop and sell. I have seen many companies use free software, but very few actually making money off of free software. When I ask, I’m usually pointed to RedHat, which makes money off of providing support. However, the money they’re getting is usually coming from companies that sell non-free software. So I’m really curious how the economy would work if everyone sold free software, since this doesn’t seem like something that would work. Also, just a a final comment, I find it amusing that Stallman has these little nicknames for all the non-free things he doesn’t like. It seems to me a bit childish; I wonder if this actually helps him or it just makes other people feel like I do.
- loseyourslinky 8y ago
  If nothing else if does force one to consider which term is closer to the truth, the one commonly used or the one Stallman invented. Used and users seems very clever, while global heating vs global warming seems arbitrary, while some people may think of heating as more threatening than warming, I'm not sure that's universal.
zekevermillion 8y ago
I prefer reading written interviews with RMS. Live interviewers never seem to be able to stop themselves from interrupting him, and he needs more than soundbite-length to make his points.
jayliew 8y ago
The world seems like a very binary and black-and-white place for RMS. Everything non-free + proprietary == bad, whereas the opposite == good. Is reality really so neatly categorized into binary outcomes with no shades of gray, though?
- vharuck 8y ago
  He sees free software principles as being on the same level as internationally recognized human rights. Sure, there could be certain cases where a right is "overridden": judicial gag orders, imprisoning convicts, eminent domain. But those should be exceptional, require justification, and follow predetermined rules.
- frank_nitti 8y ago
  When it comes to source code, yes. Are you able to view the entirety of the code running the systems that control your information and operations? The answer to that question cannot be a shade of gray. RMS has been proven more correct with each year that passes. More and more of the technologists responsible for our most significant innovations have expressed concerns about the control that large firms have gained over their users. This control is only possible through "non-free" source code, and is a guaranteed consequence when we allow the practice of distributing closed-source systems.
  - openloop 8y ago
    Agree.
  - millstone 8y ago
    rms and the GPL focus on distribution, yet the Internet has enabled large firms to gain control without distributing their software, or even while distributing FOSS software. Perhaps tomorrow Google open-sources the JS executed by google.com in their open source browser, and it makes no difference, because the important bits - what data they retain about users - are not distributed. Software we never run on our devices may yet control us.
    - 8y ago
marknadal 8y ago
Stallman is hypocritical. He says a lot of good sounding things that lure you into ideas that subtly contradict the bait he catches you with. Justification and examples of these claims here ( https://github.com/amark/gun/pull/434#issuecomment-336536807 https://github.com/amark/gun/pull/434#issuecomment-336536807 ) on an old old old issue around a GPL code dependency we had to reject.
- madez 8y ago
  On one hand, it is bad style to accuse someone with strong words while only throwing with a link to give foundation to your judgement. This does not create a constructive environment to debate and learn. On the other hand, both claims in the linked comment are not reasonable. For the first point in the link, software can be created and shared for money with the GPL while not preventing libraries to collect the software and provide it free of charge. For the second point, the given link does not give any foundation to the claim the Richard Stallman is against cooperations.
  - marknadal 8y ago
    Many in this thread are quoting his "non-free" statement yet ignorant that Stallman violates his own standard. That totally counts and proves the point. Besides the fact he outright calls corporations evil?
    - madez 8y ago
      You once again gave no direct argument for your accusation. If you can't or are unwilling to do so, please don't put out accusations.
    - boomboomsubban 8y ago
      At no point has "free software" meant "without pay," though it is common for distribution without a paywall. The owner may do what they like with their "property," which also means you can distribute it without cost after you buy it. Your belief that money should not be exchanged does not mean he is a hypocrite, it means you disagree on something.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
newnewpdro 8y ago
"If China and the US are in a race for Orwellian tyranny, I hope the US loses." RMS is generally right, and I have the utmost respect for his adherence to such a principled stance for the social good all these years. Imagine all the opportunities to become filthy rich in the tech world he's ignored, having lived through multiple tech bubbles while being more than qualified to capitalize on them through developing proprietary software or otherwise exploiting users.
nopepoper 8y ago
Has anyone ever done an economic analysis of free software(GNU licensed software) and how it plays out financially for all the actors involved? As an example, how does a license like GNU play out for the average person contributing to a successful GNU licensed game versus a closed source game? And also, at a more macro level, wouldn't a GNU-like license foster innovation and collaboration in the developing world and lead to greater profit for all parties involved in the long run(except ofc mega-corps)? *I might just open an Ask HN when I've thought this question through some more.
- smcameron 8y ago
  For games, I'd expect GNU does not play out well at all financially (and I say this as the author of a couple of GPL'ed games). Games are a bit of a strange beast, and atypical, I'd say, and pretty much nobody makes a GPL'ed game and expects to make money on it, and those that do attempt it turn out to be mistaken. If you look on http://freegamedev.net http://freegamedev.net for instance, it's pretty moribund lately, though, say five years ago it was more lively. Unity pretty much killed open source games, there's no new blood in open source games, all the young people flock to Unity. OTOH, more than half my career has been spent working on open source stuff (linux drivers, mainly) and in that, it's worked out pretty well financially. But an anecdote is not data, of course.
  - esotericn 8y ago
    Well, generally (not always) monetization revolves around having a non-free product at some stage, I think. Think about the business model of, say, charging for support for an open source library. Users don't pay that essentially _ever_. A business will pay, and they'll pay because they produce a non-free product (maybe it's SaaS, maybe they license proprietary software to other entities, whatever). A game is the end of the line. If it's free software, (essentially) no-one pays for it. There are also various examples of companies like GitLab that have the nonfree SaaS version and the free (MIT!) community version. I'd be interested in seeing examples of a pure free software business model.
    - 8y ago
jancsika 8y ago
The fact that MITAI's system had no security and was accessible over ARPANET is fascinating. What class of users could access ARPANET at that time?
- gumby 8y ago
  In theory the arpanet was restricted to someone with connections to ARPA (now DARPA): either the military, military contractors (typically being paid to support the net, like BBN and SRI) or arpa-funded research institutions like ISI, MIT, etc). However if you had a parent or friend with access they'd sometimes give you the phone number of a local TIP (dialing point) -- then pretty much the only place you could go was the machines at MIT tech square (AI, MC, ML, DM) because they didn't have any restrictions. Also various people who had accounts on other machines on the net would connect to the MIT lab machines as tourists simply because it was fun. Even once the lab caved and put in some login security it was only to access the machine -- once you were connected you could change to another user or whatever. It was "the ARPANET" by the way -- ARPA's network rather than having a name. ARPANET was also an adjective (e.g. ARPANET TIP). I know RMS would have said that but the interviewer transcribed it without the article.
  - EvanAnderson 8y ago
    Back in the early 90's I remember reading a "Letter from a Famous Hacker" in an e-zine talking about getting access to MIT systems. The sentiments expressed in the text made it seem like the security posture of the MIT AI lab was rather laid-back (and it sounded pretty cool). I dug up the article[1] tonight (thanks, Jason Scott!). The the perspective I have today (at the time I had no idea who RMS was) it seems pretty clear that RMS wrote it. It's a neat little time capsule. [1] http://www.textfiles.com/magazines/DFP/dfp-1-5.txt http://www.textfiles.com/magazines/DFP/dfp-1-5.txt
EGreg 8y ago
Freedom and democracy are more important than advancing technology. If China and the US are in a race for Orwellian tyranny, I hope the US loses. Indeed, the US should drop out of the race as soon as possible. Our society has been taught to overestimate the importance of ‘innovation’. Innovations may be good, and they may be bad. If we let companies decide which innovations we will use, they will choose the ones that give them more of an advantage over us. I liked this part the most as something new and insightful said by RMS. I am not sure that democracy is better than innovation. I would choose Freedom and Innovation over Freedom and Democracy. Just look at how much has been done in the last few centuries. Nearly everyone can have things today that even kings didn’t have. Democracy on the other hand is just a way of voting for some policy that’s then enforced on everyone. In fact, China can be said to be a democracy more than the US in some ways. I do think we need to safeguard rights and freedoms but democracy isn’t the only way to do that.
- picsao 8y ago
  > I do think we need to safeguard rights and freedoms but democracy isn’t the only way to do that. The only peaceful way to opt out of failing policies and human egos-and you do not present a prove of work of any alternative. Democracy is the only working failsafe. Also do not assign temporary well behavior due to marketpressure from the market of ideas to the shops in the market. The goods are not cheap, well made and plenty because the shopowners like you. Just look at capitalisms true nature showing up after the collapse of communism. You might endorse a alternative that could turn sour any second.
- tonyedgecombe 8y ago
  >In fact, China can be said to be a democracy more than the US in some ways. None that I can think of, there is no political opposition allowed in China.
  - cyphar 8y ago
    I agree, though there are many other western countries that have much stronger democracies than the US. Most of them in fact. In the US, third parties aren't given equal placement on ballots (you need to get "ballot rights"). Large parties get money from the government for advertising, which small parties don't. The people don't actually vote for who is in power (and votes aren't equal between people). Doesn't seem like political opposition is a workable right in the US to me. Not to mention everyone has guns, and guns are seen as an "break glass in case of tyranny" tool -- meaning that culturally people are primed to see violence as being a reasonable retort for political disagreements (obviously this is an oversimplification -- but political rallies in the US are far more violent than in many other western countries, despite many western countries having their own problems).
jondubois 8y ago
>> When I talk about capitalism, I mean private business. It's interesting that what we call a 'public corporation' today isn't actually public at all - I'm pretty sure that Richard Stallman considers public corporations as being 'private business'. A big problem with so-called public corporations is that there is not enough fluidity in terms of ownership for them to be called 'public'. The majority of shares move between a very small percentage of wealthy investors which represent an even smaller percentage of the general public. It would be good to see a capitalist system where there is more fluidity over the ownership of shares of companies. Also, it would be nice to see public companies release all their code in the public domain under the GPL license. I think that cryptocurrencies could make these things possible because they solve the financial incentive problem which has plagued free software. I think that it's now possible to create free software in the public domain in such a way that people can profit from it significantly but not in quite the same permanent way as we're used to with shares of corporations.
mothsonasloth 8y ago
I like RMS however the sad thing is that most people don't care. We can call those people sheeple or whatever, but at the end of the day they are just users who don't have the time/knowledge to care about free software. It took me a few times before I could grasp free software Vs open source and I'm knee deep in the code most days. Another issue this ideology faces is it's main proponent; RMS. He's not charismatic and as another user pointed out, does not present well on videos or talks. If he wants free software to continue, then he should pick new champions and take a step back.
- chrisseaton 8y ago
  > who don't have the time/knowledge to care about free software Or... they have the time and knowledge to carefully consider it and just haven’t concluded that it has any benefit for some reason. Not everyone who disagrees with you is doing so because they just haven’t thought about it hard enough yet.
  - confounded 8y ago
    True, but for most people I’ve discussed Free Software with this is the case. They think it’s a great idea, and would love if they could do everything they do currently with FOSS, and no extra time-investment. But, with few exceptions, that’s rarely possible, especially as more and more computing happens on phones. Of course, the people I speak to about FOSS are by no means wholly representative. But IME it’s that software freedom tends to end up being considered a nice idea but a very low priority, rather than an idea with no benefits.
- simion314 8y ago
  The thing I like about RMS is that when he speaks it is like presenting a mathematical proof, he explains the terms, rules and shows the logic arguments, the interviewers are most of the time impatient or incapable to understand such a rigorous style of response.
  - gitgud 8y ago
    Yes, I like that too, but at times he can also appear very intolerant and dogmatic about his beliefs. This makes it hard for regular people to appreciate his point of view... but I don't think he cares what people think of him anyway ...
guy98238710 8y ago
I think RMS' thinking is stuck in the 80s and 90s. This hinders the whole free software movement. I can see three main points where he is behind the times: 1. Permissive licensing actually helps the cause by spreading free software more widely, saturating demand faster, and displacing all proprietary software. It also avoids the contradiction when free software developers use their power to spread software freedom by force. 2. What RMS is afraid of is front-ending of free software with proprietary facades. This is why free software must extend through the whole stack all the way to the end user and it must be complemented with non-profits that deliver complete services to users. Non-profits can also ensure de facto freedom whilst licenses only barely protect de jure freedom. 3. Internet is not about communication. It's about remote operation of server-side software. Software freedoms must extend to teleoperated software, for example through the above mentioned non-profits.
- icebraining 8y ago
  I don't see how he is stuck at all; I see current events as validating his fears. The problem with (1) is that it doesn't solve (2) at all; free software has spread on the backend thanks to permissive licenses, and yet proprietary facades are rampant. A good example of this is Chrome (built on FOSS webkit) displacing Firefox. And that's despite Mozilla being just that kind of non-profit trying to ensure freedom. Non-profits ensuring freedoms is a nice thought, but it's very hard to compete with the abusive business models of large software corps, so unless you somehow convince regular people that they are better off paying for the stuff they use, licensing is the only real tool you have to avoid having your work contribute to those proprietary facades.
  - guy98238710 8y ago
    RMS' thinking comes from the early days of free software when free software was rare and viral licenses helped spread it. Free software is so commonplace now that its sheer volume displaces proprietary software. Proprietary software vendors are trying to adapt by replacing fees with ads and spyware (like in the case of Chrome), but this business model will not last. It is abusive and people feel it. They will eventually gravitate to free software. Once they get used to free software, they wouldn't accept abuse anymore.
rdiddly 8y ago
Are not free and open source exactly the same? Opening the source gives you the four freedoms. It's both necessary and sufficient. The objection is that it's not philosophically explicit enough, not enough about the user, watered-down somehow? To me it seems like an only slightly different emphasis - on openness rather than freedom - which are in fact the same concept, just looked at from different angles. And the openness is obviously for the user just like the freedom is. Seems like a weird place to have a sticking point. It's just People's Front of Judea vs. Judean People's Front - an argument for jackoffs.
- zzo38computer 8y ago
  It is not exactly same, although it is similar, and most thing that is one is also other; is best if it is both free software and open source. Is not only the emphasis which differs. Open source has more specific requirements, although still sometimes they don't work; that is why you should need to be both at once. For example, GNU GPL is both a valid free software license and is also a valid open source license, so is good.
- belorn 8y ago
  Remember when people presented an alternative to black lives matter and started to call it human lives matter? Emphasis sometimes matters a lot and people get upset when people intend to steer a movement away from the core issue for why it was created. It might look like a People's Front of Judea vs. Judean People's Front, but open source was created with the intention to steer focus away from the freedom ideology, just like how people say that human lives matter is just a name that people use to steer emphasis away from African Americans that get killed.
  - rdiddly 8y ago
    Interesing & very "gettable" analogy. In fact it's so apt, that it captures the feature most salient to me in all 3 examples: By insisting on things that, in the eyes of their more powerful adversaries, are minor or insignificant differences, they squander goodwill, make enemies out of allies, and make the movement weaker (or fail to make it stronger). It's a political blunder. In the case of the JPF/PFJ against the Romans it's obviously comic, but in the other two cases it's kind of tragic. BLM alienates a certain number of white people who aren't racists and want to work with them toward reform. Stallman maybe alienates a certain number of "open sourcers" who actually share most of his values & principles, certainly more than 1995 Bill Gates or 2001 Steve Ballmer did, let's say! So yeah I might do that part differently if I were Stallman or in charge of BLM. Although I suppose in neither case is there really anybody truly "in charge," which at least in my experience with FOSS I always thought was the beauty of it. (That's another thing too, how can you "co-opt" something nobody owns?) At some point you have to get shit done. Granted I'm advancing a position right now that leads to all sorts of compromise (in the one sense but also unfortunately in the other sense) and slippery-slope-ism and lesser-of-two-evils-ism. But somewhere I heard the saying, "There's nothing more useless than an unelected liberal." In other words the purity of your ideas does nobody any good if your hands aren't on the levers of power. Hi Hillary! (HRC disclaimers apply; see store for details.) That saying comes from the hierarchical model, obviously, but to translate it into a 'community movement' paradigm, power is simply the number of people participating. If you chop that in half, you chop everybody's power in half.

183 points by clydethefrog 8y ago

Bit off topic but recently I have been reading/watching a lot from Jaron Lanier. Lanier used to be a FOSS advocate but has now taken the position that his previous support, and the opinions of RMS, are wrong. Whether you agree or not, Lanier is a smart guy and an eloquent speaker and certainly worth listening to.

Synaesthesia 8y ago

Although he’s very committed to free software and individual freedom ideologically, his arguments for them are quite excellent. I find his political views are very common sense too

falcor84 8y ago
Why "although"?
- snakeboy 8y ago
  I think they meant that he can argue for those principles rationally, even though he has an ideological bias towards them.
  - smadge 8y ago
    It still seems like a strange distinction. Is the implication that RMS did not arrive at his opinions through reasoning?
    - AlexCoventry 8y ago
      Most people use reasoning to justify ideological biases arrived at via emotionally charged experiences.
      - drivers99 8y ago
        "The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion" is a book that's good at explaining that. It has changed how I observe other people's strongly held opinions online.
    - mwfunk 8y ago
      He most definitely got started down his path for emotional reasons, he had a sweet gig at MIT and he wanted to ride that train forever. When people at the lab he worked in left to join Symbolics, he was left behind and he has borne that grudge ever since. He has certainly backed up his philosophy since that time with much reasoning and writing, but even his most rational writings seem trapped under the weight of emotions IMO. It’s all good vs. evil, fire and brimstone stuff, he never assumes good faith on the part of those who disagree with him, and has never seen a bridge he didn’t want to burn.
      - eric24234 8y ago
        This post gives the impression to the reader that RMS had put his ego first and then rationalized it with fsf philosophy.From what i had read online he was pissed off when the printer manufacturer at MIT stopped sharing the source code to modify the software and he has formed(or thought about it and discovered) his philosophical leanings at that time. Very soon symbolics was formed developing closed source software and he was invited to it. But he believed strongly in his philosophy and was working hard to keep the free software up to date which symbolics was developing. Also the symbolics engineer had told in one of the interviews they were 5 people and RMS single handedly was keeping up with them. So the conclusion i had was he was 5x capable to the symbolics engineers (who are very smart people) and if he was that capable he could have become rich easily, but due to his strong philosophical belief he sacrificed his life for the greater good. If you have the links to the contrary please share.
        ryacko 8y ago
        Open source consultancies exist. RMS could make some living off of open source software. Interestingly, he has no wages from FSF. https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/42888848/201702279349302910/IRS990 https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/428...
        watwut 8y ago
        Based on mailing lists I read, some of those 5 people who RMS single handedly was keeping up with were kind of pissed off about that framing a long after. Kind of ... disagreed. He did not done the same amount of work as them, meaning work on other projects, prototyping, design work etc, through it is true that he could more or less copy functionality of the thing plus minus bugs. Designing it and trying out various ways how to do the thing takes more time then copying the project. I am fully confident in that, because I was porting a couple of projects in the past so I know how much time is saved. Aside everything else, self-glorifying stories about heroic saviors who are single so much better then second smartest person in a room should be treated with suspicion - and it is completely puzzling to me that some people are believed them so easily. Because really, for me to believe in that much of an unusual hero, I would like to have confirmations from other primary sources then just said hero and people who worship him. (That is not to say that he is incapable on the other extreme, absolutely not. But you can be extremely good and still not the god this story is about.)

mitchtbaum 8y ago

>> I’ve found GNU social close to a replacement for Twitter, whereas Diaspora was more like Facebook. > That’s what I gathered. I’m in favor of projects like these, because I know they’re useful for other people, but it wouldn’t fit my lifestyle. I just use email. You can call me the Mailman—as in True Names, Vernor Vinge’s science-fiction story. I really don't get this. Computers are supposed to open the doors to technological and social change, no? Why would anyone drag their feet like this? There are so many things that have come out since email and even more still coming.

nyolfen 8y ago
email is fine if you don't enjoy the public performance of social media. they're all messaging systems when it comes down to it. stallman also famously reads webpages by curling and emailing them to himself.
- throwaway180118 8y ago
  He also eats things he picks off his feet. A perplexing genius.
  - zzo38computer 8y ago
    OK, although that is not relevant to the arguments he is making, I think. (Although I suppose it is still something to say, perhaps? But I have not seen that elsewhere anyways so do not know if it is true or not, but anyways it is irrelevant is what I am saying.)
loseyourslinky 8y ago
He clearly values privacy very highly, and using a social media network, even a free one means giving up some of your privacy. I doubt Stallman cares much about this, but there also is a very real effect of people competing with each other on social media to show more and more artificial happiness and consumerism in their lives. Thirdly, most of GNU development is still done via mailing list, if your using email for all your work, why not use it socially as well?

saagarjha 8y ago

Just a couple of comments as I read through this: > Non-free, proprietary software is also much more likely to be malware—to contain malicious functionalities, of which there are many kinds. Non-free programs can spy on the users, report on them. Many are designed specifically to restrict what users can do—that’s their purpose. I think this is a mischaracterization, since these things apply to free software as well. The difference is that it is usually much easier to detect when such things are happening, and modify the program so that it no longer does these things. > Another form of malicious functionality is tying the program to a specific remote server Again, this doesn’t seem to me to be a “free software” argument. The reason this doesn’t usually happen with free software is that there is no central entity that controls the software, whereas with non-free software one company/server/person can control their products and “backdoor” them. > If a program is written in Swift, you can now install it yourself from source code. This is not quite true. I can do the same for a program written in Objective-C as well, and I can still write an app in Swift and send you a compiled binary for you to install. Perhaps Stallman was talking about Swift Playgrounds, but even here there are issues: you cannot necessarily change the code on your device itself, and the environment that your code runs in is much more restrictive. > free software is something businesses can use and develop and sell. I have seen many companies use free software, but very few actually making money off of free software. When I ask, I’m usually pointed to RedHat, which makes money off of providing support. However, the money they’re getting is usually coming from companies that sell non-free software. So I’m really curious how the economy would work if everyone sold free software, since this doesn’t seem like something that would work. Also, just a a final comment, I find it amusing that Stallman has these little nicknames for all the non-free things he doesn’t like. It seems to me a bit childish; I wonder if this actually helps him or it just makes other people feel like I do.

loseyourslinky 8y ago
If nothing else if does force one to consider which term is closer to the truth, the one commonly used or the one Stallman invented. Used and users seems very clever, while global heating vs global warming seems arbitrary, while some people may think of heating as more threatening than warming, I'm not sure that's universal.

zekevermillion 8y ago

I prefer reading written interviews with RMS. Live interviewers never seem to be able to stop themselves from interrupting him, and he needs more than soundbite-length to make his points.

jayliew 8y ago

The world seems like a very binary and black-and-white place for RMS. Everything non-free + proprietary == bad, whereas the opposite == good. Is reality really so neatly categorized into binary outcomes with no shades of gray, though?

vharuck 8y ago
He sees free software principles as being on the same level as internationally recognized human rights. Sure, there could be certain cases where a right is "overridden": judicial gag orders, imprisoning convicts, eminent domain. But those should be exceptional, require justification, and follow predetermined rules.
frank_nitti 8y ago
When it comes to source code, yes. Are you able to view the entirety of the code running the systems that control your information and operations? The answer to that question cannot be a shade of gray. RMS has been proven more correct with each year that passes. More and more of the technologists responsible for our most significant innovations have expressed concerns about the control that large firms have gained over their users. This control is only possible through "non-free" source code, and is a guaranteed consequence when we allow the practice of distributing closed-source systems.
- openloop 8y ago
  Agree.
- millstone 8y ago
  rms and the GPL focus on distribution, yet the Internet has enabled large firms to gain control without distributing their software, or even while distributing FOSS software. Perhaps tomorrow Google open-sources the JS executed by google.com in their open source browser, and it makes no difference, because the important bits - what data they retain about users - are not distributed. Software we never run on our devices may yet control us.
  - 8y ago

marknadal 8y ago

Stallman is hypocritical. He says a lot of good sounding things that lure you into ideas that subtly contradict the bait he catches you with. Justification and examples of these claims here ( https://github.com/amark/gun/pull/434#issuecomment-336536807 https://github.com/amark/gun/pull/434#issuecomment-336536807 ) on an old old old issue around a GPL code dependency we had to reject.

madez 8y ago
On one hand, it is bad style to accuse someone with strong words while only throwing with a link to give foundation to your judgement. This does not create a constructive environment to debate and learn. On the other hand, both claims in the linked comment are not reasonable. For the first point in the link, software can be created and shared for money with the GPL while not preventing libraries to collect the software and provide it free of charge. For the second point, the given link does not give any foundation to the claim the Richard Stallman is against cooperations.
- marknadal 8y ago
  Many in this thread are quoting his "non-free" statement yet ignorant that Stallman violates his own standard. That totally counts and proves the point. Besides the fact he outright calls corporations evil?
  - madez 8y ago
    You once again gave no direct argument for your accusation. If you can't or are unwilling to do so, please don't put out accusations.
  - boomboomsubban 8y ago
    At no point has "free software" meant "without pay," though it is common for distribution without a paywall. The owner may do what they like with their "property," which also means you can distribute it without cost after you buy it. Your belief that money should not be exchanged does not mean he is a hypocrite, it means you disagree on something.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

newnewpdro 8y ago

"If China and the US are in a race for Orwellian tyranny, I hope the US loses." RMS is generally right, and I have the utmost respect for his adherence to such a principled stance for the social good all these years. Imagine all the opportunities to become filthy rich in the tech world he's ignored, having lived through multiple tech bubbles while being more than qualified to capitalize on them through developing proprietary software or otherwise exploiting users.

nopepoper 8y ago

Has anyone ever done an economic analysis of free software(GNU licensed software) and how it plays out financially for all the actors involved? As an example, how does a license like GNU play out for the average person contributing to a successful GNU licensed game versus a closed source game? And also, at a more macro level, wouldn't a GNU-like license foster innovation and collaboration in the developing world and lead to greater profit for all parties involved in the long run(except ofc mega-corps)? *I might just open an Ask HN when I've thought this question through some more.

smcameron 8y ago
For games, I'd expect GNU does not play out well at all financially (and I say this as the author of a couple of GPL'ed games). Games are a bit of a strange beast, and atypical, I'd say, and pretty much nobody makes a GPL'ed game and expects to make money on it, and those that do attempt it turn out to be mistaken. If you look on http://freegamedev.net http://freegamedev.net for instance, it's pretty moribund lately, though, say five years ago it was more lively. Unity pretty much killed open source games, there's no new blood in open source games, all the young people flock to Unity. OTOH, more than half my career has been spent working on open source stuff (linux drivers, mainly) and in that, it's worked out pretty well financially. But an anecdote is not data, of course.
- esotericn 8y ago
  Well, generally (not always) monetization revolves around having a non-free product at some stage, I think. Think about the business model of, say, charging for support for an open source library. Users don't pay that essentially _ever_. A business will pay, and they'll pay because they produce a non-free product (maybe it's SaaS, maybe they license proprietary software to other entities, whatever). A game is the end of the line. If it's free software, (essentially) no-one pays for it. There are also various examples of companies like GitLab that have the nonfree SaaS version and the free (MIT!) community version. I'd be interested in seeing examples of a pure free software business model.
  - 8y ago

jancsika 8y ago

The fact that MITAI's system had no security and was accessible over ARPANET is fascinating. What class of users could access ARPANET at that time?

gumby 8y ago
In theory the arpanet was restricted to someone with connections to ARPA (now DARPA): either the military, military contractors (typically being paid to support the net, like BBN and SRI) or arpa-funded research institutions like ISI, MIT, etc). However if you had a parent or friend with access they'd sometimes give you the phone number of a local TIP (dialing point) -- then pretty much the only place you could go was the machines at MIT tech square (AI, MC, ML, DM) because they didn't have any restrictions. Also various people who had accounts on other machines on the net would connect to the MIT lab machines as tourists simply because it was fun. Even once the lab caved and put in some login security it was only to access the machine -- once you were connected you could change to another user or whatever. It was "the ARPANET" by the way -- ARPA's network rather than having a name. ARPANET was also an adjective (e.g. ARPANET TIP). I know RMS would have said that but the interviewer transcribed it without the article.
- EvanAnderson 8y ago
  Back in the early 90's I remember reading a "Letter from a Famous Hacker" in an e-zine talking about getting access to MIT systems. The sentiments expressed in the text made it seem like the security posture of the MIT AI lab was rather laid-back (and it sounded pretty cool). I dug up the article[1] tonight (thanks, Jason Scott!). The the perspective I have today (at the time I had no idea who RMS was) it seems pretty clear that RMS wrote it. It's a neat little time capsule. [1] http://www.textfiles.com/magazines/DFP/dfp-1-5.txt http://www.textfiles.com/magazines/DFP/dfp-1-5.txt

EGreg 8y ago

Freedom and democracy are more important than advancing technology. If China and the US are in a race for Orwellian tyranny, I hope the US loses. Indeed, the US should drop out of the race as soon as possible. Our society has been taught to overestimate the importance of ‘innovation’. Innovations may be good, and they may be bad. If we let companies decide which innovations we will use, they will choose the ones that give them more of an advantage over us. I liked this part the most as something new and insightful said by RMS. I am not sure that democracy is better than innovation. I would choose Freedom and Innovation over Freedom and Democracy. Just look at how much has been done in the last few centuries. Nearly everyone can have things today that even kings didn’t have. Democracy on the other hand is just a way of voting for some policy that’s then enforced on everyone. In fact, China can be said to be a democracy more than the US in some ways. I do think we need to safeguard rights and freedoms but democracy isn’t the only way to do that.

picsao 8y ago
> I do think we need to safeguard rights and freedoms but democracy isn’t the only way to do that. The only peaceful way to opt out of failing policies and human egos-and you do not present a prove of work of any alternative. Democracy is the only working failsafe. Also do not assign temporary well behavior due to marketpressure from the market of ideas to the shops in the market. The goods are not cheap, well made and plenty because the shopowners like you. Just look at capitalisms true nature showing up after the collapse of communism. You might endorse a alternative that could turn sour any second.
tonyedgecombe 8y ago
>In fact, China can be said to be a democracy more than the US in some ways. None that I can think of, there is no political opposition allowed in China.
- cyphar 8y ago
  I agree, though there are many other western countries that have much stronger democracies than the US. Most of them in fact. In the US, third parties aren't given equal placement on ballots (you need to get "ballot rights"). Large parties get money from the government for advertising, which small parties don't. The people don't actually vote for who is in power (and votes aren't equal between people). Doesn't seem like political opposition is a workable right in the US to me. Not to mention everyone has guns, and guns are seen as an "break glass in case of tyranny" tool -- meaning that culturally people are primed to see violence as being a reasonable retort for political disagreements (obviously this is an oversimplification -- but political rallies in the US are far more violent than in many other western countries, despite many western countries having their own problems).

jondubois 8y ago

>> When I talk about capitalism, I mean private business. It's interesting that what we call a 'public corporation' today isn't actually public at all - I'm pretty sure that Richard Stallman considers public corporations as being 'private business'. A big problem with so-called public corporations is that there is not enough fluidity in terms of ownership for them to be called 'public'. The majority of shares move between a very small percentage of wealthy investors which represent an even smaller percentage of the general public. It would be good to see a capitalist system where there is more fluidity over the ownership of shares of companies. Also, it would be nice to see public companies release all their code in the public domain under the GPL license. I think that cryptocurrencies could make these things possible because they solve the financial incentive problem which has plagued free software. I think that it's now possible to create free software in the public domain in such a way that people can profit from it significantly but not in quite the same permanent way as we're used to with shares of corporations.

mothsonasloth 8y ago

I like RMS however the sad thing is that most people don't care. We can call those people sheeple or whatever, but at the end of the day they are just users who don't have the time/knowledge to care about free software. It took me a few times before I could grasp free software Vs open source and I'm knee deep in the code most days. Another issue this ideology faces is it's main proponent; RMS. He's not charismatic and as another user pointed out, does not present well on videos or talks. If he wants free software to continue, then he should pick new champions and take a step back.

chrisseaton 8y ago
> who don't have the time/knowledge to care about free software Or... they have the time and knowledge to carefully consider it and just haven’t concluded that it has any benefit for some reason. Not everyone who disagrees with you is doing so because they just haven’t thought about it hard enough yet.
- confounded 8y ago
  True, but for most people I’ve discussed Free Software with this is the case. They think it’s a great idea, and would love if they could do everything they do currently with FOSS, and no extra time-investment. But, with few exceptions, that’s rarely possible, especially as more and more computing happens on phones. Of course, the people I speak to about FOSS are by no means wholly representative. But IME it’s that software freedom tends to end up being considered a nice idea but a very low priority, rather than an idea with no benefits.
simion314 8y ago
The thing I like about RMS is that when he speaks it is like presenting a mathematical proof, he explains the terms, rules and shows the logic arguments, the interviewers are most of the time impatient or incapable to understand such a rigorous style of response.
- gitgud 8y ago
  Yes, I like that too, but at times he can also appear very intolerant and dogmatic about his beliefs. This makes it hard for regular people to appreciate his point of view... but I don't think he cares what people think of him anyway ...

guy98238710 8y ago

I think RMS' thinking is stuck in the 80s and 90s. This hinders the whole free software movement. I can see three main points where he is behind the times: 1. Permissive licensing actually helps the cause by spreading free software more widely, saturating demand faster, and displacing all proprietary software. It also avoids the contradiction when free software developers use their power to spread software freedom by force. 2. What RMS is afraid of is front-ending of free software with proprietary facades. This is why free software must extend through the whole stack all the way to the end user and it must be complemented with non-profits that deliver complete services to users. Non-profits can also ensure de facto freedom whilst licenses only barely protect de jure freedom. 3. Internet is not about communication. It's about remote operation of server-side software. Software freedoms must extend to teleoperated software, for example through the above mentioned non-profits.

icebraining 8y ago
I don't see how he is stuck at all; I see current events as validating his fears. The problem with (1) is that it doesn't solve (2) at all; free software has spread on the backend thanks to permissive licenses, and yet proprietary facades are rampant. A good example of this is Chrome (built on FOSS webkit) displacing Firefox. And that's despite Mozilla being just that kind of non-profit trying to ensure freedom. Non-profits ensuring freedoms is a nice thought, but it's very hard to compete with the abusive business models of large software corps, so unless you somehow convince regular people that they are better off paying for the stuff they use, licensing is the only real tool you have to avoid having your work contribute to those proprietary facades.
- guy98238710 8y ago
  RMS' thinking comes from the early days of free software when free software was rare and viral licenses helped spread it. Free software is so commonplace now that its sheer volume displaces proprietary software. Proprietary software vendors are trying to adapt by replacing fees with ads and spyware (like in the case of Chrome), but this business model will not last. It is abusive and people feel it. They will eventually gravitate to free software. Once they get used to free software, they wouldn't accept abuse anymore.

rdiddly 8y ago

Are not free and open source exactly the same? Opening the source gives you the four freedoms. It's both necessary and sufficient. The objection is that it's not philosophically explicit enough, not enough about the user, watered-down somehow? To me it seems like an only slightly different emphasis - on openness rather than freedom - which are in fact the same concept, just looked at from different angles. And the openness is obviously for the user just like the freedom is. Seems like a weird place to have a sticking point. It's just People's Front of Judea vs. Judean People's Front - an argument for jackoffs.

zzo38computer 8y ago
It is not exactly same, although it is similar, and most thing that is one is also other; is best if it is both free software and open source. Is not only the emphasis which differs. Open source has more specific requirements, although still sometimes they don't work; that is why you should need to be both at once. For example, GNU GPL is both a valid free software license and is also a valid open source license, so is good.
belorn 8y ago
Remember when people presented an alternative to black lives matter and started to call it human lives matter? Emphasis sometimes matters a lot and people get upset when people intend to steer a movement away from the core issue for why it was created. It might look like a People's Front of Judea vs. Judean People's Front, but open source was created with the intention to steer focus away from the freedom ideology, just like how people say that human lives matter is just a name that people use to steer emphasis away from African Americans that get killed.
- rdiddly 8y ago
  Interesing & very "gettable" analogy. In fact it's so apt, that it captures the feature most salient to me in all 3 examples: By insisting on things that, in the eyes of their more powerful adversaries, are minor or insignificant differences, they squander goodwill, make enemies out of allies, and make the movement weaker (or fail to make it stronger). It's a political blunder. In the case of the JPF/PFJ against the Romans it's obviously comic, but in the other two cases it's kind of tragic. BLM alienates a certain number of white people who aren't racists and want to work with them toward reform. Stallman maybe alienates a certain number of "open sourcers" who actually share most of his values & principles, certainly more than 1995 Bill Gates or 2001 Steve Ballmer did, let's say! So yeah I might do that part differently if I were Stallman or in charge of BLM. Although I suppose in neither case is there really anybody truly "in charge," which at least in my experience with FOSS I always thought was the beauty of it. (That's another thing too, how can you "co-opt" something nobody owns?) At some point you have to get shit done. Granted I'm advancing a position right now that leads to all sorts of compromise (in the one sense but also unfortunately in the other sense) and slippery-slope-ism and lesser-of-two-evils-ism. But somewhere I heard the saying, "There's nothing more useless than an unelected liberal." In other words the purity of your ideas does nobody any good if your hands aren't on the levers of power. Hi Hillary! (HRC disclaimers apply; see store for details.) That saying comes from the hierarchical model, obviously, but to translate it into a 'community movement' paradigm, power is simply the number of people participating. If you chop that in half, you chop everybody's power in half.