8 ms·

I'm not rms, and I don't speak for him, but his opposition to non-free software is predicated upon the claim that it harms the user. As death is arguably a gre

I'm not rms, and I don't speak for him, but his opposition to non-free software is predicated upon the claim that it harms the user. As death is arguably a greater harm than any non-free software could inflict, I suspect he would say that it is not wrong to use non-free software to save a life if no free alternative is readily available. You can ask him yourself, if you want: rms@fsf.org He replies to almost all emails within a couple of days. EDIT: He actually answered a very similar question in his reddit AMA [1]: 22. two_front_teeth: Suppose your doctor told you that you needed a medical procedure to survive but that the procedure would require inserting a device inside of your body which ran proprietary software. Would you be willing to have the procedure done to save your life? RMS: The only way I could justify this is if I began developing a free replacement for that very program. It is ok to use a nonfree program for the purpose of developing its free replacement. [1] http://blog.reddit.com/2010/07/rms-ama.html http://blog.reddit.com/2010/07/rms-ama.html

lumberjack 14y ago
To continue with the above comment, I'd like to point out that RMS has valid concerns regarding non-free software running inside your body. You don't want to have a buggy pacemaker with unencrypted unprotected wireless access. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/07/27/buggy_pacemaker_code/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/07/27/buggy_pacemaker_code... https://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2010/transparent-medical-devices.html https://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2010/transparent-m... Moreover I don't feel comfortable using a technology that is owned, developed and maintained exclusively by one company.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- rimantas 14y ago
  As if free software cannot be buggy and with lousy security. I am so tired of this "open and free makes everything perfect by magic" thinking.
  - VeejayRampay 14y ago
    It's not about it being more secure. It's that at least when it's suffering from malfunction, you got shitloads of eyeballs on the thing to make it work and work well. Why do you think all the OpenBSD tools are so ubiquitous?
    - w0utert 14y ago
      Keeping this in the context of devices like a pacemaker, do you really believe that an open-source development model would be safer for the people who depend on it than a closed-source model? Do you expect them to flash custom ROMs to the pacemaker that keeps them alive if it turns out there may be a problem with them, instead of going to the hospital to get the thing replaced?
      - redthrowaway 14y ago
        Nobody's saying they wouldn't just reflash it at the hospital. Replacing a pacemaker requires surgery, which is why they're externally programmable in the first place.
      - jerf 14y ago
        One of the things I've learned in life is that We're All Just Folk. There's no magical divinely-inspired programmer out there creating firmware for your pacemaker. The difference between him and me is process, and little else. If I'm given access to the same testing processes they use as part of the open source package, I see no reason to believe my code is going to be worse than anybody else's. Sure, I'd think twice before installing it, but in some sense that's irrational; I should think twice before anything like that because We're All Just Folk, and it's just some guys writing all the firmware we all depend on. In some ways, it's best not to think too hard about this.
      - beeneto 14y ago
        Whether or not a pacemaker is running free open source software is independant of whether or not a person can flash their own version of the software to it. If it were open source you, or anyone who was fitted with the pacemaker could look at the rules that control it. Making _anything_ visible and open to criticism instantly makes its creators more accountable and adds pressure for them to try and be responsible.
- specialist 14y ago
  Very similar to my concerns for running non-free software inside our democracies.
zdouglas 14y ago
> The only way I could justify this is if I began developing a free replacement for that very program. If the Oracle suit taught me anything, it's to be careful when using APIs.
- yread 14y ago
  You could do it in EU though

lumberjack 14y ago

To continue with the above comment, I'd like to point out that RMS has valid concerns regarding non-free software running inside your body. You don't want to have a buggy pacemaker with unencrypted unprotected wireless access. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/07/27/buggy_pacemaker_code/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/07/27/buggy_pacemaker_code... https://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2010/transparent-medical-devices.html https://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2010/transparent-m... Moreover I don't feel comfortable using a technology that is owned, developed and maintained exclusively by one company.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
rimantas 14y ago
As if free software cannot be buggy and with lousy security. I am so tired of this "open and free makes everything perfect by magic" thinking.
- VeejayRampay 14y ago
  It's not about it being more secure. It's that at least when it's suffering from malfunction, you got shitloads of eyeballs on the thing to make it work and work well. Why do you think all the OpenBSD tools are so ubiquitous?
  - w0utert 14y ago
    Keeping this in the context of devices like a pacemaker, do you really believe that an open-source development model would be safer for the people who depend on it than a closed-source model? Do you expect them to flash custom ROMs to the pacemaker that keeps them alive if it turns out there may be a problem with them, instead of going to the hospital to get the thing replaced?
    - redthrowaway 14y ago
      Nobody's saying they wouldn't just reflash it at the hospital. Replacing a pacemaker requires surgery, which is why they're externally programmable in the first place.
    - jerf 14y ago
      One of the things I've learned in life is that We're All Just Folk. There's no magical divinely-inspired programmer out there creating firmware for your pacemaker. The difference between him and me is process, and little else. If I'm given access to the same testing processes they use as part of the open source package, I see no reason to believe my code is going to be worse than anybody else's. Sure, I'd think twice before installing it, but in some sense that's irrational; I should think twice before anything like that because We're All Just Folk, and it's just some guys writing all the firmware we all depend on. In some ways, it's best not to think too hard about this.
    - beeneto 14y ago
      Whether or not a pacemaker is running free open source software is independant of whether or not a person can flash their own version of the software to it. If it were open source you, or anyone who was fitted with the pacemaker could look at the rules that control it. Making _anything_ visible and open to criticism instantly makes its creators more accountable and adds pressure for them to try and be responsible.
specialist 14y ago
Very similar to my concerns for running non-free software inside our democracies.

zdouglas 14y ago

> The only way I could justify this is if I began developing a free replacement for that very program. If the Oracle suit taught me anything, it's to be careful when using APIs.

yread 14y ago
You could do it in EU though