5 ms·

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

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.
  - cyphar 8y ago
    AGPL tries to solve some of these problems, but fundamentally any service which controls and operates on your data on a server you don't own cannot fundamentally be free. RMS calls such services SaaSS (Service as a Software Substitute). So while distributed systems under AGPL still protect your freedom, AGPL of a SaaSS (like Google Docs) are non-free because you cannot change the software running on the server (and of course you shouldn't be able to -- because that would violate the freedom of the administrator). SaaSS is fundamentally incompatible with software freedom. (And this is something that RMS has made clear arguments about. He cares more than just about distribution.)
twtw 8y ago
http://torvalds-family.blogspot.com/2008/11/black-and-white.html?m=1 http://torvalds-family.blogspot.com/2008/11/black-and-white....
loseyourslinky 8y ago
Software is either open or closed what would the gray even be?
- brownbat 8y ago
  Linux with a video card.
  - madez 8y ago
    Since usually you can always add open parts to a system, the question is not if there are open parts, but if there are (substantial) closed parts. > Linux with a video card. Assuming you are speaking about a recent video card from AMD or Nvidia, then that system has substantial closed parts, which are unreviewable and unmodifiable by the user and/or owner of the device.
  - robarr 8y ago
    He means the binary blobs.
- tonyedgecombe 8y ago
  I don't think jayliew was doubting what the definition of open source is but rather whether software is good because its open source and bad because it's closed. If someone thinks it is as black and white as this then it has clearly become ideological rather than rational.
  - icebraining 8y ago
    Ideological and rational are not in opposition. Also, he doesn't think all software is good just because it's foss; it can be bad for other reasons. But all non-foss software is bad, because it violates the rights of users. I don't see the problem with being this consistent. If I say that all non-consensual sex is bad, am I an irrational ideologue too?
    - jayliew 8y ago
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
zzo38computer 8y ago
I agree of, non-free + proprietary == bad, whereas the opposite == good, but it is not the only consideration. Many computer software can be good or bad regardless of such thing, but free software is still a better idea than nonfree software. If program has some problem (e.g. malware, or a feature doesn't work the way you want it to be, or whatever), you can hopefully to correct it! That is why free software is good and nonfree software isn't good. But, it is correct, reality is not really so neatly categorized into binary outcomes with no shades of gray (and other colours).
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

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.
- cyphar 8y ago
  AGPL tries to solve some of these problems, but fundamentally any service which controls and operates on your data on a server you don't own cannot fundamentally be free. RMS calls such services SaaSS (Service as a Software Substitute). So while distributed systems under AGPL still protect your freedom, AGPL of a SaaSS (like Google Docs) are non-free because you cannot change the software running on the server (and of course you shouldn't be able to -- because that would violate the freedom of the administrator). SaaSS is fundamentally incompatible with software freedom. (And this is something that RMS has made clear arguments about. He cares more than just about distribution.)

twtw 8y ago

http://torvalds-family.blogspot.com/2008/11/black-and-white.html?m=1 http://torvalds-family.blogspot.com/2008/11/black-and-white....

loseyourslinky 8y ago

Software is either open or closed what would the gray even be?

brownbat 8y ago
Linux with a video card.
- madez 8y ago
  Since usually you can always add open parts to a system, the question is not if there are open parts, but if there are (substantial) closed parts. > Linux with a video card. Assuming you are speaking about a recent video card from AMD or Nvidia, then that system has substantial closed parts, which are unreviewable and unmodifiable by the user and/or owner of the device.
- robarr 8y ago
  He means the binary blobs.
tonyedgecombe 8y ago
I don't think jayliew was doubting what the definition of open source is but rather whether software is good because its open source and bad because it's closed. If someone thinks it is as black and white as this then it has clearly become ideological rather than rational.
- icebraining 8y ago
  Ideological and rational are not in opposition. Also, he doesn't think all software is good just because it's foss; it can be bad for other reasons. But all non-foss software is bad, because it violates the rights of users. I don't see the problem with being this consistent. If I say that all non-consensual sex is bad, am I an irrational ideologue too?
  - jayliew 8y ago

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

zzo38computer 8y ago

I agree of, non-free + proprietary == bad, whereas the opposite == good, but it is not the only consideration. Many computer software can be good or bad regardless of such thing, but free software is still a better idea than nonfree software. If program has some problem (e.g. malware, or a feature doesn't work the way you want it to be, or whatever), you can hopefully to correct it! That is why free software is good and nonfree software isn't good. But, it is correct, reality is not really so neatly categorized into binary outcomes with no shades of gray (and other colours).

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]