7 ms·

Why Richard Stallman Doesn’t Matter

75 points by smacktoward 7y ago

antsoul 7y ago
If only the author knew about GNUnet...
- Finnucane 7y ago
  Wake us up when that's an actual usable thing.
- mdszy 7y ago
  This GNUNet? https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0a/Gnunet-gtk_0.10_under_arch-gnulinux.png/800px-Gnunet-gtk_0.10_under_arch-gnulinux.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0a/Gn...
  - dependenttypes 7y ago
    The interface has been different for quite a while now.
HeWhoLurksLate 7y ago
This article hurt to read.
- rolltiide 7y ago
  Many blogs are just long winded comments immune from external input
- kome 7y ago
  why?
- bitL 7y ago
  If you weren't given right to read it, you wouldn't have been hurt! See?
elteto 7y ago
"For over 30 years, Stallman has been a tireless advocate of a world that hasn’t mattered for the past 15 years." I think that, if anything, the exact opposite is true after Snowden's revelations.
- new_realist 7y ago
  Spying in the name of national security and viral software licenses are unrelated. Further, as another point of irrelevancy, Open Source predates, is more popular than, and is more influential than Free Software.
  - saon 7y ago
    You're right. But you have to recognize it is because corporations recognized they can commodify tons of their code to reduce costs and improve code quality and security. The linux foundation has dozens of multi-million-dollar partner corporations, whereas the FSF has maybe 5000 contributing members globally. But those corporations have no reason to guarantee that your computer will do what you want it to do, and many reasons to guarantee that it will do what they want it to do. This is a pervasive norm now, especially on hackernews where the demographic is primarily entrepreneurial web-only devs. Before deriding free software, ask yourself, who benefits from being able to read the source code of a program that restricts what ebooks you can read?
  - alexvoda 7y ago
    More popular and more influential I understand but please explain what you mean that it predates.
- shadowgovt 7y ago
  Remember when Snowden released all those documents and nearly nobody changed the way they behave because it turns out passive, ubiquitous state surveillance wasn't the end of the world it had been made out to be? Good times.
alfonsodev 7y ago
I've stopped reading at > He has mental issues ... I don't know if it's true and already public, but how can you write that publicy about someone, you must be a profesional to diagnose someone and still that's very personal information. Even more, he's acusing Stallman of being "poorly socialized because nobody taught him manner", so revealing somone mental issues publicy must make him very well socliazied and good manerered.
- pflenker 7y ago
  While I agree with you on that, I encourage you to read on. The author does make some interesting points later in the text which are not related to that statement.
  - alfonsodev 7y ago
    well thanks, I'll give it a try later, perhaps my response was a subtle Ad Hominem to a very harsh Ad Hominem, In general I think we need to get pass falacies and have a real conversation.
  - jen_h 7y ago
    I found this a worthwhile argument: "The FSF should have nurtured and grown new leaders a long time ago, leaders who looked into the future, understand cloud and mobile computing and their threats to a free society. ... I never heard anyone at the FSF ask what it means for a digital society that Facebook has been legally using free software to develop algorithms that modify human behavior. Quite the opposite, the problem was javascript in the browser for apps like Gmail." I wish the author had taken his own titular advice, though...the post would be better for it.
- giancarlostoro 7y ago
  That's a bit harsh. I'm ok with people saying he's eccentric. But outright saying he has mental issues, that's quite the accusation.
  - mdgrech23 7y ago
firasd 7y ago
I don't think his philosophy is irrelevant in the era of cloud computing. For example, 'The Right to Read' is an allegory about textbooks, but I realized that the fact that my old laptop can run Netflix (since the PC & browser support general computing!) while many smartphones and 'smart tvs' of the same vintage can't, makes the concept relevant today-- perhaps more than ever: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.en.html That said, this post makes some salient points about how Stallman's personal habits & interests have overly narrowed down the issues he focuses on.
astine 7y ago
Stallman founded the FSF at a time when people licensed their software from companies and as a result didn't truly own the machines that they used. We've transitioned to a time where people don't even own most of the hardware they use and have given up ownership of most of their data. So yeah, the situation has gotten a lot worse and the specific focus on software is less relevant than it used to be.
rpmisms 7y ago
This is a hit piece, not mostly based in fact, from someone who should stop eating soy, and start a diet of bread made entirely from crushed linux kernels. Excuse me: GNU/Linux kernels.
goatinaboat 7y ago
Every nonentity lining up now to put the boot into RMS
enriquto 7y ago
This is such an eloquent exposition of the exact opposite of my thoughts! It's been a long time since I've had that deep connection with something I read. It feels strangely great.
- gsaga 7y ago
  You should try meeting up with him. Let us know how that went via HN.
bitL 7y ago
One moment of weakness and you see all the people that ever hated you out for your blood with vengeance. Humanity won't ever progress if we stick with this ugly algorithm...
- Santosh83 7y ago
  Particularly odious considering these very same people did not have the guts to publish their criticism when he was seen as unimpeachable. It would've had more seeming validity then, and now just seems like an attempt to flog the dead horse, even if some genuine points are present.
  - PhasmaFelis 7y ago
    I've talked about how out-of-touch Stallman seems to be for years, and I'm not the only one.
    - Santosh83 7y ago
      Out of touch in certain areas (as you point out in your other comment) doesn't mean you cease to matter or be relevant. Much of what he speaks about is still very much relevant the way I see it: non-Free software, lack of control over your device, the largely non-free javascript, the disadvantages of locked down platforms like Facebook, Kindle etc. I don't see how "Stallman no longer matters" holds up. At the same time I'm not saying he has to head FSF or be the only voice. Of course not. It would be good to see a new face take over if only because Stallman has fought the fight for decades and it is unfair to keep expecting him to lead from the front till he drops dead.
      - shadowgovt 7y ago
        Nobody's stopping him from speaking. The FSF, MIT, and portions of the GNU maintainer community have simply aligned on the meme "He doesn't speak for us." As they may.
- armitron 7y ago
Saad_M 7y ago
I don't agree 100% with the author, but I do wholeheartedly agree that the relevance of FSF movement definitely peaked after the ratification of GPLv3. After which, the relevance and political visibility of the movement has decreased significantly as we moved from PC/Laptops being our primary computing device to smartphones.
- sramsay 7y ago
  I remember Stallman's obsession with "TiVoization," and I remember wondering if that was really the most pressing thing on the horizon at the time. I also find the claim that the goal of the FSF became "completing GNU for Stallman’s laptop" credible. But I kept wondering what the future of the GPL could be under new leadership? Would a GPLv4 be even less congenial to a company like Apple (that is systematically trying to remove any trace of the GPL from its entire stack)? Or would it try to make some concessions toward the Linux kernel and the LLVM/clang project (for example)? edit: missing word
  - AstralStorm 7y ago
    It still is an issue. Can you run your own software on the phone? How about its modem chip? How many closed drivers and services are necessary then, because documentation is not provided and firmware is cryptographically signed? Services have a problem related to copyright assignment and another due to lock in switching costs, but it's not something a software license can fix easily. And whether protocols are copyrightable is somewhat of an open question. Others are fighting for open protocols and standards - and still losing. (Mozilla Foundation for example.)
- kgwxd 7y ago
  The move to smartphones doesn't change anything. The only thing different this time around is too many people were willing to overlook the lack of control upfront, and it's hard to undo that. But it is being done and the FSF is an important part of making that happen.
Spooky23 7y ago
This guy just doesn't get it. > That’s because Stallman’s world was and still is, stuck in the 80s: computers are physical devices that users can own and keep in their homes. For that use case, the four freedoms, the definition of source code and installation tooling introduced in GPLv3 made a lot of sense. Nothing else seemed to matter to him. The decision for the Linux kernel not to adopt GPLv3 wasn’t considered a problem and it was often downplayed by FSF leadership. ... > Folks closest to the FSF community were so myopic about completing GNU for Stallman’s laptop that nobody did anything about the big picture. I never heard anyone at the FSF ask what it means for a digital society that Facebook has been legally using free software to develop algorithms that modify human behavior. Quite the opposite, the problem was javascript in the browser for apps like Gmail. The copyleft movement/FSF was always consistently focused on working within the legal framework of copyright. That's important, because the Supreme Court decided in the 1960s and 1970s that turning over custody of information to a third party essentially abrogates your rights/expectations to privacy. (See: Third party doctrine) Does that make sense? Not to most modern technology practitioners. But there is nothing that you can do (outside of contract and market forces) to ensure control of information that you place in custody of a third party. Those "1980s" principles matter because that is the only thing that the law recognizes. When the law evolves and figures out how to deal with "virtual" custody of information, those same principles will be applied.
- jabvigWe 7y ago
  Yes, and the FSF does have something to say about facebook. Don't use it https://www.fsf.org/facebook https://www.fsf.org/facebook. And afaik, they are working on writing more about this issue. Also, RMS is just not paying attention to his own laptop: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/03/facebook-abusing-data-law-privacy-big-tech-surveillance https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/03/facebo...
  - shadowgovt 7y ago
    "Just don't use" for what is arguably the world's most successful interpersonal networking system is a pretty vacant suggestion. Might as well recommend people stop using roads and sidewalks because of the environmental hazards they create.
mrighele 7y ago
> All around him, not a single voice could argue strongly enough about the Google issue that later would become the *-as-a-service loophole and cloud issue. Not an expert in the matter, but isn't this loophole exactly what the AGPL [1] is about ? Maybe we can argue that to be effective it should be the default instead of regular GPL, but I have never seen people being too fond of it, though things may change now that developers have become more sensitive to the matter. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Affero_General_Public_License https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Affero_General_Public_Lice...
carlsborg 7y ago
Richard Stallman rocks.
vectorEQ 7y ago
opinion opinion opinion, it's nice 'moot point' was in bold. i stopped reading there and took it as a summary of the article. don't care about stallman nor FSF, but this article seems a sad attempt at making any kind of point. Much negativity in the first few scentences makes the writer seem exactly the kind of person he's trying to describe. :')
- PhasmaFelis 7y ago
  > i stopped reading there and took it as a summary of the article. don't care about stallman nor FSF So you didn't read the article and you don't understand any of the things that it's discussing, but you want us to know that you think it's bad?
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
computerex 7y ago
Who the hell is this idiot and why is this horseshit being posted here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNUnet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNUnet Literally everything in that article is unsubstantiated. I can't find one true fact in there.
- badcede 7y ago
  "open source marketer and community manager"
hpoe 7y ago
Let's keep in mind that beyond just his tireless efforts to advocate for Free Software Stallman also built almost all of the GNU toolset. Let's put aside his politics and views on licensing and what we have is a genius developer who single handedly has done more to advance computing with the GNU tool set and the distribution thereof than anyone else in the past 30 years. Without Stallman for example there would be no Linux as we know it because you'll notice most of the actual tools that allow you to do things on Linux are GNU tools written by Stallman. Regardless of his views on how society and software should interact he still is one of the most important figures in the history of computing and deserves some respect and appreciation for that.
w3mmpp 7y ago
Without Richard Stallman, no linux as complete OS, no gcc, no emacs and hundreds of other libs/software. Stefano Maffulli: make a list of what you brought to the world and compare with what he did and then ask this same question for yourself. I assure you, it'll be revelatory.
- carlob 7y ago
  That's a very stupid argument it's basically like saying that Roger Ebert should not have written a single review because he hasn't directed any movie. Furthermore the FSF is eminently a political and legal organization, having software chops doesn't really make you any better at that (take Lessig as an example).
- rimliu 7y ago
  Yeah, nobody else could/would do it. Just nobody. How do people get these ideas, that some guy is solely responsible for the progress of the human race?
werber 7y ago
I used to be very adamant about free software and I reached out to stallman a while ago, the interaction wasn’t great, I think this author crossed a line discussing his mental health, not cool. But my life has been a lot easier since giving up on digital purity
antoineMoPa 7y ago
I agree in general, but saying "Nobody at the FSF cared about cloud or mobile" is not true [1][2]. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2008/sep/29/cloud.computing.richard.stallman https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2008/sep/29/cloud.com... [2] https://www.networkworld.com/article/2200967/software-cell-phones-are-stalin-s-dream-says-free-software-movement-founder.html https://www.networkworld.com/article/2200967/software-cell-p...
- antoineMoPa 7y ago
  Actually, the articles are from 2008 and 2011, so maybe the author is right (maybe no one cared in 2005).
CodeArtisan 7y ago
>Nobody at the FSF cared about cloud or mobile Stallman back in 2010 about SaaS https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-s... Also, https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-affero-gpl.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-affero-gpl.html "We don't see any sensible way to address the SaaSS problem with license conditions on particular programs. Even to write a legal condition to distinguish between SaaSS use and non-SaaSS use would be a challenge, and if we had that, we don't see anything that the program's license might require in the SaaSS case that would correct the inherent wrong of SaaSS. Thus, our solution to the problem of SaaSS is simple: refuse to use services that are SaaSS."
- shadowgovt 7y ago
  Unfortunately, that's not a solution; that's throwing up one's hands and ignoring the issue with extra steps. Refusing to put pieces on the field means the other players can move without your input. They did, and now whether the OS on my machine is open is somewhat irrelevant because the things that provide services I care about won't talk to it unless I'm running closed-source blobs they control.
  - AstralStorm 7y ago
    It still matters, as you will have options to build open replacements, ignore lock in. Hardware and firmware are bigger problems, as per cryptographic signing and legal framework to prevent breaking these solutions.
brodouevencode 7y ago
Not sure why this is flagged. Not saying that I wholly agree with the author but there are interesting and relevant points to be made here.
- rimliu 7y ago
  There is a strong presence of his cultists on HN. By "cultists" I mean the people having "he can do nothing wrong" mentality. Double standards were going strong recently.
- wglb 7y ago
  Sometime articles or comments get flagged because it is clear that it will lead to lots of flamewars, even if the article is valuable.
PhasmaFelis 7y ago
I respect Stallman for everything he's accomplished, but I don't understand how anyone saw him as an authority on modern Web issues given his public stance on using the internet. https://stallman.org/stallman-computing.html https://stallman.org/stallman-computing.html He's never owned a cellphone--any cellphone, not just a smartphone. His preferred way to use the Web is to email the URL to a service which emails him the site, which he reads in Lynx. He'll use a GUI browser when he has to, but he never does a Google search, because Google asks him for a CAPTCHA (because he's connecting through Tor) and the CAPTCHA doesn't work (because he refuses to run JavaScript). Those may be reasonable choices for an individual, but treating him like a Web authority is like hiring a traffic engineer who's never driven a car.
smkellat 7y ago
Hindsight is very distorting. It was not inevitable 10 years ago that we would get to this point now.
CrackerNews 7y ago
The author of this article, Stefano Maffulli, claims to be the leader of the Italian chapter of the FSF during the mid 2000's. Besides the personal attacks on Richard Stallman, it's clear that his perspectives on software freedom diverged from Stallman's and the FSF's around that time (after the release of GPLv3). Maffulli definitely does not help his point by attacking Stallman's and the FSF's position. Maffulli does have a point in that the scope of software freedom has greatly expanded and has come under even greater attack than before (through the rise of mobile and the cloud), and there needs to be organizational efforts made to resist it. I don't see how either of their perspectives are mutually exclusive. One point Maffulli should have emphasized more and elaborated upon is how FOSS actually ended up being the "most perfect shackles that society has ever had." The only thing to say anything about that is a video that the phrase is linked to. If he had attacked Stallman and the FSF less and focused more on the crux of his arguments, then he would have a much more meaningful and impactful article.
dpq 7y ago
The point of the author being? Since he has poor manners, or Asperger's syndrome, or he lacks vision to lead the free software movement into the future, then it's okay to plant news stories, coat them with outrageous not-technically-lies and perform character assassination on him?
m31415 7y ago
From the conclusion > the FSF needs to focus on the algorithms that change people behavior Is this satire or does the author really want the FSF to engage in mind control? This is such low-effort tripe and obvious personal attack.
AstralStorm 7y ago
Why does criticism of Richard Stallman matter then to the author if the man himself doesn't? (Yes, this is allegiation of riding on coattails. Steffano Maffuli of OpenStack matters even less.)

75 points by smacktoward 7y ago

antsoul 7y ago

If only the author knew about GNUnet...

Finnucane 7y ago
Wake us up when that's an actual usable thing.
mdszy 7y ago
This GNUNet? https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0a/Gnunet-gtk_0.10_under_arch-gnulinux.png/800px-Gnunet-gtk_0.10_under_arch-gnulinux.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0a/Gn...
- dependenttypes 7y ago
  The interface has been different for quite a while now.

HeWhoLurksLate 7y ago

This article hurt to read.

rolltiide 7y ago
Many blogs are just long winded comments immune from external input
kome 7y ago
why?
bitL 7y ago
If you weren't given right to read it, you wouldn't have been hurt! See?

elteto 7y ago

"For over 30 years, Stallman has been a tireless advocate of a world that hasn’t mattered for the past 15 years." I think that, if anything, the exact opposite is true after Snowden's revelations.

new_realist 7y ago
Spying in the name of national security and viral software licenses are unrelated. Further, as another point of irrelevancy, Open Source predates, is more popular than, and is more influential than Free Software.
- saon 7y ago
  You're right. But you have to recognize it is because corporations recognized they can commodify tons of their code to reduce costs and improve code quality and security. The linux foundation has dozens of multi-million-dollar partner corporations, whereas the FSF has maybe 5000 contributing members globally. But those corporations have no reason to guarantee that your computer will do what you want it to do, and many reasons to guarantee that it will do what they want it to do. This is a pervasive norm now, especially on hackernews where the demographic is primarily entrepreneurial web-only devs. Before deriding free software, ask yourself, who benefits from being able to read the source code of a program that restricts what ebooks you can read?
- alexvoda 7y ago
  More popular and more influential I understand but please explain what you mean that it predates.
shadowgovt 7y ago
Remember when Snowden released all those documents and nearly nobody changed the way they behave because it turns out passive, ubiquitous state surveillance wasn't the end of the world it had been made out to be? Good times.

alfonsodev 7y ago

I've stopped reading at > He has mental issues ... I don't know if it's true and already public, but how can you write that publicy about someone, you must be a profesional to diagnose someone and still that's very personal information. Even more, he's acusing Stallman of being "poorly socialized because nobody taught him manner", so revealing somone mental issues publicy must make him very well socliazied and good manerered.

pflenker 7y ago
While I agree with you on that, I encourage you to read on. The author does make some interesting points later in the text which are not related to that statement.
- alfonsodev 7y ago
  well thanks, I'll give it a try later, perhaps my response was a subtle Ad Hominem to a very harsh Ad Hominem, In general I think we need to get pass falacies and have a real conversation.
- jen_h 7y ago
  I found this a worthwhile argument: "The FSF should have nurtured and grown new leaders a long time ago, leaders who looked into the future, understand cloud and mobile computing and their threats to a free society. ... I never heard anyone at the FSF ask what it means for a digital society that Facebook has been legally using free software to develop algorithms that modify human behavior. Quite the opposite, the problem was javascript in the browser for apps like Gmail." I wish the author had taken his own titular advice, though...the post would be better for it.
giancarlostoro 7y ago
That's a bit harsh. I'm ok with people saying he's eccentric. But outright saying he has mental issues, that's quite the accusation.
- mdgrech23 7y ago

firasd 7y ago

I don't think his philosophy is irrelevant in the era of cloud computing. For example, 'The Right to Read' is an allegory about textbooks, but I realized that the fact that my old laptop can run Netflix (since the PC & browser support general computing!) while many smartphones and 'smart tvs' of the same vintage can't, makes the concept relevant today-- perhaps more than ever: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.en.html That said, this post makes some salient points about how Stallman's personal habits & interests have overly narrowed down the issues he focuses on.

astine 7y ago

Stallman founded the FSF at a time when people licensed their software from companies and as a result didn't truly own the machines that they used. We've transitioned to a time where people don't even own most of the hardware they use and have given up ownership of most of their data. So yeah, the situation has gotten a lot worse and the specific focus on software is less relevant than it used to be.

rpmisms 7y ago

This is a hit piece, not mostly based in fact, from someone who should stop eating soy, and start a diet of bread made entirely from crushed linux kernels. Excuse me: GNU/Linux kernels.

goatinaboat 7y ago

Every nonentity lining up now to put the boot into RMS

enriquto 7y ago

This is such an eloquent exposition of the exact opposite of my thoughts! It's been a long time since I've had that deep connection with something I read. It feels strangely great.

gsaga 7y ago
You should try meeting up with him. Let us know how that went via HN.

bitL 7y ago

One moment of weakness and you see all the people that ever hated you out for your blood with vengeance. Humanity won't ever progress if we stick with this ugly algorithm...

Santosh83 7y ago
Particularly odious considering these very same people did not have the guts to publish their criticism when he was seen as unimpeachable. It would've had more seeming validity then, and now just seems like an attempt to flog the dead horse, even if some genuine points are present.
- PhasmaFelis 7y ago
  I've talked about how out-of-touch Stallman seems to be for years, and I'm not the only one.
  - Santosh83 7y ago
    Out of touch in certain areas (as you point out in your other comment) doesn't mean you cease to matter or be relevant. Much of what he speaks about is still very much relevant the way I see it: non-Free software, lack of control over your device, the largely non-free javascript, the disadvantages of locked down platforms like Facebook, Kindle etc. I don't see how "Stallman no longer matters" holds up. At the same time I'm not saying he has to head FSF or be the only voice. Of course not. It would be good to see a new face take over if only because Stallman has fought the fight for decades and it is unfair to keep expecting him to lead from the front till he drops dead.
    - shadowgovt 7y ago
      Nobody's stopping him from speaking. The FSF, MIT, and portions of the GNU maintainer community have simply aligned on the meme "He doesn't speak for us." As they may.
armitron 7y ago

Saad_M 7y ago

I don't agree 100% with the author, but I do wholeheartedly agree that the relevance of FSF movement definitely peaked after the ratification of GPLv3. After which, the relevance and political visibility of the movement has decreased significantly as we moved from PC/Laptops being our primary computing device to smartphones.

sramsay 7y ago
I remember Stallman's obsession with "TiVoization," and I remember wondering if that was really the most pressing thing on the horizon at the time. I also find the claim that the goal of the FSF became "completing GNU for Stallman’s laptop" credible. But I kept wondering what the future of the GPL could be under new leadership? Would a GPLv4 be even less congenial to a company like Apple (that is systematically trying to remove any trace of the GPL from its entire stack)? Or would it try to make some concessions toward the Linux kernel and the LLVM/clang project (for example)? edit: missing word
- AstralStorm 7y ago
  It still is an issue. Can you run your own software on the phone? How about its modem chip? How many closed drivers and services are necessary then, because documentation is not provided and firmware is cryptographically signed? Services have a problem related to copyright assignment and another due to lock in switching costs, but it's not something a software license can fix easily. And whether protocols are copyrightable is somewhat of an open question. Others are fighting for open protocols and standards - and still losing. (Mozilla Foundation for example.)
kgwxd 7y ago
The move to smartphones doesn't change anything. The only thing different this time around is too many people were willing to overlook the lack of control upfront, and it's hard to undo that. But it is being done and the FSF is an important part of making that happen.

Spooky23 7y ago

This guy just doesn't get it. > That’s because Stallman’s world was and still is, stuck in the 80s: computers are physical devices that users can own and keep in their homes. For that use case, the four freedoms, the definition of source code and installation tooling introduced in GPLv3 made a lot of sense. Nothing else seemed to matter to him. The decision for the Linux kernel not to adopt GPLv3 wasn’t considered a problem and it was often downplayed by FSF leadership. ... > Folks closest to the FSF community were so myopic about completing GNU for Stallman’s laptop that nobody did anything about the big picture. I never heard anyone at the FSF ask what it means for a digital society that Facebook has been legally using free software to develop algorithms that modify human behavior. Quite the opposite, the problem was javascript in the browser for apps like Gmail. The copyleft movement/FSF was always consistently focused on working within the legal framework of copyright. That's important, because the Supreme Court decided in the 1960s and 1970s that turning over custody of information to a third party essentially abrogates your rights/expectations to privacy. (See: Third party doctrine) Does that make sense? Not to most modern technology practitioners. But there is nothing that you can do (outside of contract and market forces) to ensure control of information that you place in custody of a third party. Those "1980s" principles matter because that is the only thing that the law recognizes. When the law evolves and figures out how to deal with "virtual" custody of information, those same principles will be applied.

jabvigWe 7y ago
Yes, and the FSF does have something to say about facebook. Don't use it https://www.fsf.org/facebook https://www.fsf.org/facebook. And afaik, they are working on writing more about this issue. Also, RMS is just not paying attention to his own laptop: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/03/facebook-abusing-data-law-privacy-big-tech-surveillance https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/03/facebo...
- shadowgovt 7y ago
  "Just don't use" for what is arguably the world's most successful interpersonal networking system is a pretty vacant suggestion. Might as well recommend people stop using roads and sidewalks because of the environmental hazards they create.

mrighele 7y ago

> All around him, not a single voice could argue strongly enough about the Google issue that later would become the *-as-a-service loophole and cloud issue. Not an expert in the matter, but isn't this loophole exactly what the AGPL [1] is about ? Maybe we can argue that to be effective it should be the default instead of regular GPL, but I have never seen people being too fond of it, though things may change now that developers have become more sensitive to the matter. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Affero_General_Public_License https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Affero_General_Public_Lice...

carlsborg 7y ago

Richard Stallman rocks.

vectorEQ 7y ago

opinion opinion opinion, it's nice 'moot point' was in bold. i stopped reading there and took it as a summary of the article. don't care about stallman nor FSF, but this article seems a sad attempt at making any kind of point. Much negativity in the first few scentences makes the writer seem exactly the kind of person he's trying to describe. :')

PhasmaFelis 7y ago
> i stopped reading there and took it as a summary of the article. don't care about stallman nor FSF So you didn't read the article and you don't understand any of the things that it's discussing, but you want us to know that you think it's bad?

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

computerex 7y ago

Who the hell is this idiot and why is this horseshit being posted here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNUnet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNUnet Literally everything in that article is unsubstantiated. I can't find one true fact in there.

badcede 7y ago
"open source marketer and community manager"

hpoe 7y ago

Let's keep in mind that beyond just his tireless efforts to advocate for Free Software Stallman also built almost all of the GNU toolset. Let's put aside his politics and views on licensing and what we have is a genius developer who single handedly has done more to advance computing with the GNU tool set and the distribution thereof than anyone else in the past 30 years. Without Stallman for example there would be no Linux as we know it because you'll notice most of the actual tools that allow you to do things on Linux are GNU tools written by Stallman. Regardless of his views on how society and software should interact he still is one of the most important figures in the history of computing and deserves some respect and appreciation for that.

w3mmpp 7y ago

Without Richard Stallman, no linux as complete OS, no gcc, no emacs and hundreds of other libs/software. Stefano Maffulli: make a list of what you brought to the world and compare with what he did and then ask this same question for yourself. I assure you, it'll be revelatory.

carlob 7y ago
That's a very stupid argument it's basically like saying that Roger Ebert should not have written a single review because he hasn't directed any movie. Furthermore the FSF is eminently a political and legal organization, having software chops doesn't really make you any better at that (take Lessig as an example).
rimliu 7y ago
Yeah, nobody else could/would do it. Just nobody. How do people get these ideas, that some guy is solely responsible for the progress of the human race?

werber 7y ago

I used to be very adamant about free software and I reached out to stallman a while ago, the interaction wasn’t great, I think this author crossed a line discussing his mental health, not cool. But my life has been a lot easier since giving up on digital purity

antoineMoPa 7y ago

I agree in general, but saying "Nobody at the FSF cared about cloud or mobile" is not true [1][2]. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2008/sep/29/cloud.computing.richard.stallman https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2008/sep/29/cloud.com... [2] https://www.networkworld.com/article/2200967/software-cell-phones-are-stalin-s-dream-says-free-software-movement-founder.html https://www.networkworld.com/article/2200967/software-cell-p...

antoineMoPa 7y ago
Actually, the articles are from 2008 and 2011, so maybe the author is right (maybe no one cared in 2005).

CodeArtisan 7y ago

>Nobody at the FSF cared about cloud or mobile Stallman back in 2010 about SaaS https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-s... Also, https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-affero-gpl.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-affero-gpl.html "We don't see any sensible way to address the SaaSS problem with license conditions on particular programs. Even to write a legal condition to distinguish between SaaSS use and non-SaaSS use would be a challenge, and if we had that, we don't see anything that the program's license might require in the SaaSS case that would correct the inherent wrong of SaaSS. Thus, our solution to the problem of SaaSS is simple: refuse to use services that are SaaSS."

shadowgovt 7y ago
Unfortunately, that's not a solution; that's throwing up one's hands and ignoring the issue with extra steps. Refusing to put pieces on the field means the other players can move without your input. They did, and now whether the OS on my machine is open is somewhat irrelevant because the things that provide services I care about won't talk to it unless I'm running closed-source blobs they control.
- AstralStorm 7y ago
  It still matters, as you will have options to build open replacements, ignore lock in. Hardware and firmware are bigger problems, as per cryptographic signing and legal framework to prevent breaking these solutions.

brodouevencode 7y ago

Not sure why this is flagged. Not saying that I wholly agree with the author but there are interesting and relevant points to be made here.

rimliu 7y ago
There is a strong presence of his cultists on HN. By "cultists" I mean the people having "he can do nothing wrong" mentality. Double standards were going strong recently.
wglb 7y ago
Sometime articles or comments get flagged because it is clear that it will lead to lots of flamewars, even if the article is valuable.

PhasmaFelis 7y ago

I respect Stallman for everything he's accomplished, but I don't understand how anyone saw him as an authority on modern Web issues given his public stance on using the internet. https://stallman.org/stallman-computing.html https://stallman.org/stallman-computing.html He's never owned a cellphone--any cellphone, not just a smartphone. His preferred way to use the Web is to email the URL to a service which emails him the site, which he reads in Lynx. He'll use a GUI browser when he has to, but he never does a Google search, because Google asks him for a CAPTCHA (because he's connecting through Tor) and the CAPTCHA doesn't work (because he refuses to run JavaScript). Those may be reasonable choices for an individual, but treating him like a Web authority is like hiring a traffic engineer who's never driven a car.

smkellat 7y ago

Hindsight is very distorting. It was not inevitable 10 years ago that we would get to this point now.

CrackerNews 7y ago

The author of this article, Stefano Maffulli, claims to be the leader of the Italian chapter of the FSF during the mid 2000's. Besides the personal attacks on Richard Stallman, it's clear that his perspectives on software freedom diverged from Stallman's and the FSF's around that time (after the release of GPLv3). Maffulli definitely does not help his point by attacking Stallman's and the FSF's position. Maffulli does have a point in that the scope of software freedom has greatly expanded and has come under even greater attack than before (through the rise of mobile and the cloud), and there needs to be organizational efforts made to resist it. I don't see how either of their perspectives are mutually exclusive. One point Maffulli should have emphasized more and elaborated upon is how FOSS actually ended up being the "most perfect shackles that society has ever had." The only thing to say anything about that is a video that the phrase is linked to. If he had attacked Stallman and the FSF less and focused more on the crux of his arguments, then he would have a much more meaningful and impactful article.

dpq 7y ago

The point of the author being? Since he has poor manners, or Asperger's syndrome, or he lacks vision to lead the free software movement into the future, then it's okay to plant news stories, coat them with outrageous not-technically-lies and perform character assassination on him?

m31415 7y ago

From the conclusion > the FSF needs to focus on the algorithms that change people behavior Is this satire or does the author really want the FSF to engage in mind control? This is such low-effort tripe and obvious personal attack.

AstralStorm 7y ago

Why does criticism of Richard Stallman matter then to the author if the man himself doesn't? (Yes, this is allegiation of riding on coattails. Steffano Maffuli of OpenStack matters even less.)