5 ms·

This article doesn't seem to give any examples of specific predictions Stallman made that have turned out to be correct. All the article seems to be saying is

by pg 15y ago

This article doesn't seem to give any examples of specific predictions Stallman made that have turned out to be correct. All the article seems to be saying is that Stallman seemed paranoid, and present events seem to justify paranoia. (Incidentally, people always feel that.) Can anyone give some examples of specific predictions Stallman made that seemed surprising at the time, but that have come true? I'm not saying there haven't been any, just that such a list would be more useful than this article.

desireco42 15y ago
His paranoia was based on knowledge that only free software, free access and freedom are ways to live your life. You will find very few people who are ready to go to lengths that he went to do what they preach.
tmsh 15y ago
I agree the title and wording in the article is not very specific. However, I think it's mostly just the general point that Stallman makes about free software (the 'prediction' is just that this is important). At the risk of hypothesizing how this point is relevant: freedom to modify software is an inalienable right, which increases the chances of people not taking advantage of other people with technology. Not in any absolute sense (it only increases the chances). But it just makes coming up with solutions to centralized, non-democratic uses of technology (SOPA, etc.) a lot more easy.
Joakal 15y ago
"Right to read" http://falkvinge.net/2011/06/03/stallmans-the-right-to-read-becomes-dreaded-insane-reality/ http://falkvinge.net/2011/06/03/stallmans-the-right-to-read-... (Related: http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20069648-264/richard-stallman-break-free-of-e-book-chains/ http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20069648-264/richard-stall... and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Right_to_Read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Right_to_Read) Here's a lot more in the articles: http://stallman.org/#politics http://stallman.org/#politics Edit: IFSO: Richard Stallman: The Dangers of Software Patents; 2004-05-24 (transcript) http://www.ifso.ie/documents/rms-2004-05-24.html http://www.ifso.ie/documents/rms-2004-05-24.html Copyright and Globalization in the Age of Computer Networks - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation (FSF) https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/copyright-and-globalization.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/copyright-and-globalization.h... 2nd edit: You are a Terrorist (Du bist Terrorist) German, English Subtitles - YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdIA0jeW-24 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdIA0jeW-24
- pg 15y ago
  Can you give me some examples of specific predictions he made that you feel are most prescient?
  - jaekwon 15y ago
    From the "Right to Read" 1997-02... "Dan had learned that each book had a copyright monitor that reported when and where it was read, and by whom, to Central Licensing." -> Streaming content, DMCA tech "It was also possible to bypass the copyright monitors by installing a modified system kernel." -> Jailbreaking "But not only were they illegal, like debuggers—you could not install one if you had one, without knowing your computer's root password. And neither the FBI nor Microsoft Support would tell you that." -> trusted computing "But ordinary users started using [free debugging tools] to bypass copyright monitors, and eventually a judge ruled that this had become their principal use in actual practice. This meant they were illegal; the debuggers' developers were sent to prison." -> DeCSS, Sony ---- From "The Dangers of Software Patents" 2004-05-24... "Copyright covers a work of authorship. A patent covers an idea. ...... But a patent is an absolute monopoly on the use of an idea. Even if you could prove that you had the idea yourself, that would be irrelevant: you're still not allowed to use it." -> Apple filed U.S. application Ser. No. 10/842,862 entitled “Multipoint Touchscreen,” filed on 2004-05-04 and published as U.S. Published Application No. 2006/0097991 on 2006-05-11. --- From "Copyright and Globalization" 2001-04-19... (Selected bits that were interesting to me) "In the ancient world, books were written by hand with a pen, …… you could copy a part of a book, then write some new words, copy some more and write some new words and on and on. This was called “writing a commentary” — that was a common thing to do — and these commentaries were appreciated. …… Now copyright was developed along with the use of the printing press and given the technology of the printing press, it had the effect of an industrial regulation. It didn't restrict what readers could do; it restricted what publishers and authors could do. …… copyright law no longer acts as an industrial regulation; it is now a Draconian restriction on a general public. It used to be a restriction on publishers for the sake of authors. Now, for practical purposes, it's a restriction on a public for the sake of publishers. …… To enforce it requires surveillance — an intrusion — and harsh punishments, and we are seeing these being enacted into law in the U.S. and other countries." -> NAFTA which is mentioned in the talk, SOPA, Protect IP, etc
jbermudes 15y ago
While not a specific claim to prediction of form X will happen in the year Y, it is a bit unsettling how since its original publication in 1997, RMS's "Right to Read" [1] has almost served as a playbook for the intellectual property lobby (1998's DMCA + UEFI's Secure Boot, trusted computing, etc). especially in light of the author's notes [1] that demonstrate that the laws required to create that dystopia are either available in some form already or have been proposed in the past, or are actively being worked on (SOPA, Protect-IP). Ultimately it's not one particular statement that is eye-opening, but rather taking a holistic view of how the landscape of law and the aspects of what general-purpose computers (and programmers) can do and how that will continue to step on more and more industries' toes as pointed out by Cory Doctorow [2]. It's not so much that he's some sort of prophet as it is the unfortunate fact that his paranoia is increasingly justifiable with every new law creating new IP restrictions and laws dealing with civil liberties (PATRIOT, NDAA, etc). It's a self-perpetuating negative feedback loop. [1] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html [2] http://lwn.net/Articles/473794/ http://lwn.net/Articles/473794/
trotsky 15y ago
When he was vocally making the rounds at USENIX in the mid 80's telling everyone that soon you'd be able to get UNIX with source code for free instead of paying AT&T five figures I don't know anyone who thought he would pull it off and there were a lot of jokes. Even though his project got bogged down lots of other activity sprang up. BSD dropped some code in '89 and then things went crazy in the early 90's. I'm sure you meant about security, though. I doubt the blog spammer had anything in mind, he was pretty uninformed on the subject.
praptak 15y ago
I do not believe that the article was about specific predictions and maybe not even about predictions at all. The main thesis of the article was that he was right, not that he is prescient. Stallman's position has always been that it is bad for you not to have full control over the software you run. This is admittedly not very specific but I do not think it needs to be. It is a political view after all, not a scientifically verifiable hypothesis. The article enumerates some cases of that badness which were not present when Stallman started his movement but are present now. That does not make him a prophet - it is just some new evidence that supports his views.

by pg 15y ago

desireco42 15y ago

His paranoia was based on knowledge that only free software, free access and freedom are ways to live your life. You will find very few people who are ready to go to lengths that he went to do what they preach.

tmsh 15y ago

I agree the title and wording in the article is not very specific. However, I think it's mostly just the general point that Stallman makes about free software (the 'prediction' is just that this is important). At the risk of hypothesizing how this point is relevant: freedom to modify software is an inalienable right, which increases the chances of people not taking advantage of other people with technology. Not in any absolute sense (it only increases the chances). But it just makes coming up with solutions to centralized, non-democratic uses of technology (SOPA, etc.) a lot more easy.

Joakal 15y ago

"Right to read" http://falkvinge.net/2011/06/03/stallmans-the-right-to-read-becomes-dreaded-insane-reality/ http://falkvinge.net/2011/06/03/stallmans-the-right-to-read-... (Related: http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20069648-264/richard-stallman-break-free-of-e-book-chains/ http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20069648-264/richard-stall... and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Right_to_Read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Right_to_Read) Here's a lot more in the articles: http://stallman.org/#politics http://stallman.org/#politics Edit: IFSO: Richard Stallman: The Dangers of Software Patents; 2004-05-24 (transcript) http://www.ifso.ie/documents/rms-2004-05-24.html http://www.ifso.ie/documents/rms-2004-05-24.html Copyright and Globalization in the Age of Computer Networks - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation (FSF) https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/copyright-and-globalization.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/copyright-and-globalization.h... 2nd edit: You are a Terrorist (Du bist Terrorist) German, English Subtitles - YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdIA0jeW-24 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdIA0jeW-24

pg 15y ago
Can you give me some examples of specific predictions he made that you feel are most prescient?
- jaekwon 15y ago
  From the "Right to Read" 1997-02... "Dan had learned that each book had a copyright monitor that reported when and where it was read, and by whom, to Central Licensing." -> Streaming content, DMCA tech "It was also possible to bypass the copyright monitors by installing a modified system kernel." -> Jailbreaking "But not only were they illegal, like debuggers—you could not install one if you had one, without knowing your computer's root password. And neither the FBI nor Microsoft Support would tell you that." -> trusted computing "But ordinary users started using [free debugging tools] to bypass copyright monitors, and eventually a judge ruled that this had become their principal use in actual practice. This meant they were illegal; the debuggers' developers were sent to prison." -> DeCSS, Sony ---- From "The Dangers of Software Patents" 2004-05-24... "Copyright covers a work of authorship. A patent covers an idea. ...... But a patent is an absolute monopoly on the use of an idea. Even if you could prove that you had the idea yourself, that would be irrelevant: you're still not allowed to use it." -> Apple filed U.S. application Ser. No. 10/842,862 entitled “Multipoint Touchscreen,” filed on 2004-05-04 and published as U.S. Published Application No. 2006/0097991 on 2006-05-11. --- From "Copyright and Globalization" 2001-04-19... (Selected bits that were interesting to me) "In the ancient world, books were written by hand with a pen, …… you could copy a part of a book, then write some new words, copy some more and write some new words and on and on. This was called “writing a commentary” — that was a common thing to do — and these commentaries were appreciated. …… Now copyright was developed along with the use of the printing press and given the technology of the printing press, it had the effect of an industrial regulation. It didn't restrict what readers could do; it restricted what publishers and authors could do. …… copyright law no longer acts as an industrial regulation; it is now a Draconian restriction on a general public. It used to be a restriction on publishers for the sake of authors. Now, for practical purposes, it's a restriction on a public for the sake of publishers. …… To enforce it requires surveillance — an intrusion — and harsh punishments, and we are seeing these being enacted into law in the U.S. and other countries." -> NAFTA which is mentioned in the talk, SOPA, Protect IP, etc

jbermudes 15y ago

While not a specific claim to prediction of form X will happen in the year Y, it is a bit unsettling how since its original publication in 1997, RMS's "Right to Read" [1] has almost served as a playbook for the intellectual property lobby (1998's DMCA + UEFI's Secure Boot, trusted computing, etc). especially in light of the author's notes [1] that demonstrate that the laws required to create that dystopia are either available in some form already or have been proposed in the past, or are actively being worked on (SOPA, Protect-IP). Ultimately it's not one particular statement that is eye-opening, but rather taking a holistic view of how the landscape of law and the aspects of what general-purpose computers (and programmers) can do and how that will continue to step on more and more industries' toes as pointed out by Cory Doctorow [2]. It's not so much that he's some sort of prophet as it is the unfortunate fact that his paranoia is increasingly justifiable with every new law creating new IP restrictions and laws dealing with civil liberties (PATRIOT, NDAA, etc). It's a self-perpetuating negative feedback loop. [1] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html [2] http://lwn.net/Articles/473794/ http://lwn.net/Articles/473794/

trotsky 15y ago

When he was vocally making the rounds at USENIX in the mid 80's telling everyone that soon you'd be able to get UNIX with source code for free instead of paying AT&T five figures I don't know anyone who thought he would pull it off and there were a lot of jokes. Even though his project got bogged down lots of other activity sprang up. BSD dropped some code in '89 and then things went crazy in the early 90's. I'm sure you meant about security, though. I doubt the blog spammer had anything in mind, he was pretty uninformed on the subject.

praptak 15y ago

I do not believe that the article was about specific predictions and maybe not even about predictions at all. The main thesis of the article was that he was right, not that he is prescient. Stallman's position has always been that it is bad for you not to have full control over the software you run. This is admittedly not very specific but I do not think it needs to be. It is a political view after all, not a scientifically verifiable hypothesis. The article enumerates some cases of that badness which were not present when Stallman started his movement but are present now. That does not make him a prophet - it is just some new evidence that supports his views.