5 ms·

Richard Stallman has been way off the rails and a detriment to his own cause for years. I'm not talking about the pedophilia comments, the sexual harassment of

Richard Stallman has been way off the rails and a detriment to his own cause for years. I'm not talking about the pedophilia comments, the sexual harassment of women in tech, or the toe jam. All those are well documented and don't need restating. No, if you look at the FSF's recent policies regarding software freedom, they are also bass-ackwards. The FSF had a "respects your freedom" certification which is designed to encourage devices to be less free, thanks to a concession for blobs and proprietary firmware. Effectively, they know that it's impossible to build modern hardware without blobs, so instead what they did is require those blobs to be hidden, immutable, un-freeable, un-auditable. That way they can claim, for all the clueless free software evangelists, that the devices are 100% Free (because there are no closed blobs in /lib/firmware! They're just... elsewhere, where you can't see them, audit them, touch them, or actually replace them with a free version). I wrote up the story in this Twitter thread, it's crazy: https://twitter.com/marcan42/status/1040626210999431168 https://twitter.com/marcan42/status/1040626210999431168 Then there is also the AGPL, which isn't a Free Software license, but rather an end-user license agreement (EULA), because it violates Freedom Zero: the freedom to use software however you want. All free software licenses only impose restrictions on distribution, making them copyright licenses - you can use original or modified versions of e.g. GPLed software at will, with no condition, as long as you don't redistribute them to others. The AGPL requires advertising and offering source when used as a network server, which is a condition on usage, and thus incompatible with the Free Software definition. rms will never admit to this, but AGPL-licensed software is, by any reasonable reading of the Free Software definition, not Free Software, and shouldn't be included in the Debian main repository, for example. It's just that nobody seems to be able to read past the "AGPL is from the FSF so it must be free software" idea. These are just some ways in which the FSF and rms are hurting their own cause. If you want to support an organization, I would recommend the FSFe instead of the FSF. The European branch is actually doing good work for free software advocacy, instead of all the nonsense the FSF is doing which only makes the movement look worse.

forgotmypw17 6y ago
I think you have formed a rather negative opinion of rms without having ever met him or spoken with him. This is common in politics, so I don't blame you, but I don't think you're serving yourself or anyone else well.
- marcan_42 6y ago
  I fail to see how meeting someone in person is a requirement to form an opinion on them based on their public actions. Claiming that it is, though, sure sounds like a common dismissive tactic in politics, and especially when defending people who otherwise commit undesirable, even detestable public actions ("but he's a great guy, he'd never hurt anyone" etc).
  - forgotmypw17 6y ago
    What I'm saying is that politics distorts everything about a person, and makes them appear as something they are not.
jordigh 6y ago
> Then there is also the AGPL, which isn't a Free Software license, but rather an end-user license agreement (EULA), because it violates Freedom Zero: the freedom to use software however you want. If you have this opinion of the AGPL, then you should also have it about the GPL, since the only difference between the two is section 13 of both of them (seriously, just diff them) which says that conveying over a network also triggers copyleft. This is just a modernisation of plain ol' copyleft from the days when conveying was mostly done on physical media instead of over a network. If some day we discover a way to distribute software over neither a network nor physical medium (I can't imagine what that could be... quantum entanglement?), then the definition of "conveying" should be updated to reflect the new technology. The GPL has long been considered open source by OSI and free software by the FSF. You are free to use the software however you want -- you're just not free to deny this freedom to your users or clients, with neither the GPL nor the AGPL.
- marcan_42 6y ago
  The AGPL section 13 isn't about conveying the program itself, it's about making it available as a service for network interaction. It may be just a one paragraph difference, but that difference is what makes the AGPL into an EULA. It's a requirement on users. The GPLv3 has zero requirements on users, only on distributors. You might think this is a valid clause to include, and like its effects, and that's fine (though a close reading of that AGPL clause reveals a myriad of problems; it's extremely poorly thought-out and I find it unlikely that it would survive in court if properly challenged, with many workarounds possible, or causing problems for normal usage, depending on interpretation). But it doesn't change the fact that, suddenly, it makes it into an EULA, since it imposes a condition on usage, not distribution. The GPL and other Free Software licenses strictly give you rights. You have no right to copy software by default under copyright. Those licenses give you the right to do so, subject to certain conditions. The AGPL removes rights. It removes the right to use (not distribute) the software as you wish if you do not follow certain conditions (that you don't modify it without making those modifications available to remote users who are otherwise not receiving a copy of the program anyway, and not invoking copyright). Linux distributions should be including the AGPL as a click-through license when users request to install such software from the repositories. In the current status quo, users are required to abide by terms they haven't been required to read, and might accidentally violate the license by doing something that is otherwise legal, such as editing a script in /usr that is part of such an app and exposing it over the Internet.

forgotmypw17 6y ago

I think you have formed a rather negative opinion of rms without having ever met him or spoken with him. This is common in politics, so I don't blame you, but I don't think you're serving yourself or anyone else well.

marcan_42 6y ago
I fail to see how meeting someone in person is a requirement to form an opinion on them based on their public actions. Claiming that it is, though, sure sounds like a common dismissive tactic in politics, and especially when defending people who otherwise commit undesirable, even detestable public actions ("but he's a great guy, he'd never hurt anyone" etc).
- forgotmypw17 6y ago
  What I'm saying is that politics distorts everything about a person, and makes them appear as something they are not.

jordigh 6y ago

> Then there is also the AGPL, which isn't a Free Software license, but rather an end-user license agreement (EULA), because it violates Freedom Zero: the freedom to use software however you want. If you have this opinion of the AGPL, then you should also have it about the GPL, since the only difference between the two is section 13 of both of them (seriously, just diff them) which says that conveying over a network also triggers copyleft. This is just a modernisation of plain ol' copyleft from the days when conveying was mostly done on physical media instead of over a network. If some day we discover a way to distribute software over neither a network nor physical medium (I can't imagine what that could be... quantum entanglement?), then the definition of "conveying" should be updated to reflect the new technology. The GPL has long been considered open source by OSI and free software by the FSF. You are free to use the software however you want -- you're just not free to deny this freedom to your users or clients, with neither the GPL nor the AGPL.

marcan_42 6y ago
The AGPL section 13 isn't about conveying the program itself, it's about making it available as a service for network interaction. It may be just a one paragraph difference, but that difference is what makes the AGPL into an EULA. It's a requirement on users. The GPLv3 has zero requirements on users, only on distributors. You might think this is a valid clause to include, and like its effects, and that's fine (though a close reading of that AGPL clause reveals a myriad of problems; it's extremely poorly thought-out and I find it unlikely that it would survive in court if properly challenged, with many workarounds possible, or causing problems for normal usage, depending on interpretation). But it doesn't change the fact that, suddenly, it makes it into an EULA, since it imposes a condition on usage, not distribution. The GPL and other Free Software licenses strictly give you rights. You have no right to copy software by default under copyright. Those licenses give you the right to do so, subject to certain conditions. The AGPL removes rights. It removes the right to use (not distribute) the software as you wish if you do not follow certain conditions (that you don't modify it without making those modifications available to remote users who are otherwise not receiving a copy of the program anyway, and not invoking copyright). Linux distributions should be including the AGPL as a click-through license when users request to install such software from the repositories. In the current status quo, users are required to abide by terms they haven't been required to read, and might accidentally violate the license by doing something that is otherwise legal, such as editing a script in /usr that is part of such an app and exposing it over the Internet.