7 ms·

Ahhh Stallman! Stallman is open sources resident lunatic. And for better or worse he's ours and we should embrace him. Not because we think what he says is rig

Ahhh Stallman! Stallman is open sources resident lunatic. And for better or worse he's ours and we should embrace him. Not because we think what he says is right, rather for his purity of vision and conviction. You don't have to agree with him, but you have to respect how far he's willing to go to make a point. And this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pube5Aynsls https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pube5Aynsls

jraph 2y ago
I believe he would rather be described as free software's resident lunatic though.
- userbinator 2y ago
  He does emphasise source code and equate it to freedom, despite it possible to have freedom without open source (it's called public domain software.)
  - jraph 2y ago
    I believe you are mixing up many things. > He does emphasise source code This is not relevant to the free software movement vs the open source movement. > it possible to have freedom without open source No, because the open source definition is more or less equivalent to the free software definition, and something not open source is therefore not free either. > it's called public domain software. Public domain software is necessarily¹ open source provided you have the source code. If you don't, you don't have freedom either. 1 ("well, actually"): many countries don't allow you to willingly put something into the public domain yourself, so in those country, it is not clear you have any right to use software someone put in the public domain because it's not in public domain in those country. You'd need an explicit license like CC0 to do this.
    - userbinator 2y ago
      No, because the open source definition is more or less equivalent to the free software definition, and something not open source is therefore not free either. Wrong. Public domain software is necessarily open source provided you have the source code. If you don't, you don't have freedom either. Wrong. This is precisely the idiotic focus on source code I'm talking about. Decompilers are even better now than they were in the 80s when people, even Stallman himself admits, would just disassemble and then modify software that way. As long as you have the power to change the bytes that make up the software, and doing that is legal, that should be enough to qualify as free software. How it was made doesn't matter one bit (pun intended).
      - jraph 2y ago
        You are conflating "open source" and "source available". You have a point with having the right to modify a program in the public domain through a decompilation of its machine code. But for a program to be free software, the ability to study and modify the program must be practical, legal is not enough. Sharing the source code is the minimum, we can't stoop so low as to consider a blob free software or open source just because you have the right to modify it. It's not that idiotic to put an emphasis on the source code. What are you trying to defend?
        userbinator 2y ago
        What do you mean "stoop so low"? That's how it's always been in every other industry --- people can and do modify and fix things by learning how they work, without any form of assistance from the original manufacturer. I don't need to have the original design documentation to make or modify a new part for my car, boat, washing machine, HVAC system, etc. Why should software be any different? But for a program to be free software, the ability to study and modify the program must be practical, legal is not enough. It already is practical. As I mentioned, decompilers are only getting better and what we have now is far better than in the early days when people did "study and modify" just fine. I could also argue that a lot of current free software is not practical to "study and modify" even with the source code. Instead, the emphasis on source code has created a sort of learned helplessness (see above) that is definitely an impediment to true freedom. Companies have instead used "open source" as a form of virtue-signaling while adapting other user-hostile "security" features that make it so users can see the source and try to contribute to it (with their contributions only accepted if they toe the line) but can't actually make use of those changes themselves. Android, Firefox, and some other Google projects come to mind.
  - npteljes 2y ago
    Free software is not just about potential freedom, it's about making sure that the software indeed stays free. Freedom is not quantitative, although we do speak in terms like more freedom and less freedom. In case of public domain, people are free to do whatever with the thing, including restricting its freedom. With free software, there are rules that prohibit restricting freedom. People who don't like rules can argue that this is less freedom, but history shows that a lack of rules only enable local warlords who then create their own rules, so, freedom with humans is something that needs to be granted somehow. And in case of software, it looks like the free software licenses are doing well.
    - jraph 2y ago
      I believe you are mixing up free software with copyleft. Permissive license are also free software licenses. (but indeed, the FSF and GNU projects, who defined free software, also push for copyleft for the reasons you mention).
      - npteljes 2y ago
        Yes, I think I did, thanks. It's actually copyleft that I described, not just free software. And yes I indeed also agree with the general idea of copyleft, for the reasons I described.
eesmith 2y ago
Open source's resident lunatic is esr, not rms.
- rvense 2y ago
  [flagged]
- zer00eyz 2y ago
  RMS's rider begs to differ: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3159210 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3159210
  - mandmandam 2y ago
    Did you not read the top comments on that post all talking about how sensible that rider is, how moral, how much time it would save? Smearing people like this should not be acceptable on HN.
    - zer00eyz 2y ago
      Did you not read what he wrote? Between the good stuff there's enough oddity that it looks rather stallmanesqe... > A supply of tea with milk and sugar would be nice. If it is tea I really like, I like it without milk and sugar. With milk and sugar, any kind of tea is fine. I always bring tea bags with me, so if we use my tea bags, I will certainly like that tea without milk or sugar. You want tea? But don't say what kind? > If you can find a host for me that has a friendly parrot, I will be very very glad. If you can find someone who has a friendly parrot I can visit with, that will be nice too. > DON'T buy a parrot figuring that it will be a fun surprise for me. .... Friendly and Parrot is pretty much a dam unicorn if you know what's up. Why is your preference for Parrots in here? Is this legit something you think any of us should give a shit about? Brown M&M's was in there for a reason. I am not finding a parrot for you RMS. And, for the love of god, who bought him a parrot.
      - eesmith 2y ago
        > But don't say what kind? Which I interpret as "don't go out of your way to get special tea for me." > Why is your preference for Parrots in here? Because some people fawn over famous people, and once they hear through the grapevine that Stallman likes parrots, they'll do daft things like buy him a parrot for the visit, without realizing how horrible that is to the parrot.
arresin 2y ago
That “lunatic” is right more often than he is wrong.
- EGreg 2y ago
  Most people are
pyeri 2y ago
Stallman is the Socrates of our times who will be appreciated only centuries later perhaps by a distant generation. So far, everything he has said and written about surveillance capitalism and Big Tech's monopoly has turned out to be true. The subreddit /r/StallmanWasRight has aged phenomenally and also turned out to be true and prophetic.
- dennis_jeeves2 2y ago
  >Stallman is the Socrates of our times who will be appreciated only centuries later perhaps by a distant generation. Speculation: I believe that there were many in the league of Socrates who were never known.
  - ivan_gammel 2y ago
    > I believe that there were many in the league of Socrates who were never known. Yes. History is choosing random names for preservation. If every century had just one worthy name or event, in 1 million years there will be 10000 of them, way too many to remember. Eventually the humankind will forget almost everything that we think is important about our culture. The information may not be lost, but it will be buried in some scientific databases. I bet that Stallman won’t last even a century. He is a pioneer, naive and controversial, but the main works on ethics of software, copyright etc are yet to be written, and the names of those authors will shine brighter.
    - dennis_jeeves2 2y ago
      Extrapolating tangentially along lines of what you just, overall people _think_ that there is an upward trajectory of overall wisdom because of events in the past. My observation is that it is not. Th average human memory is very, very short.
- EGreg 2y ago
  This is my cause celebre: http://laweekly.com/restoring-healthy-communities/ http://laweekly.com/restoring-healthy-communities/ I have also been right about a lot of things :-P from a left-libertarian perspective: https://magarshak.com/blog/?p=362 https://magarshak.com/blog/?p=362 and also lack the capital and clout to make a bigger impact and prevent huge mistakes: 2023: https://magarshak.com/blog/?p=424 https://magarshak.com/blog/?p=424 2014: https://magarshak.com/blog/?p=174 https://magarshak.com/blog/?p=174 unfortunately, politicians and crowds don’t always listen to sensible rational arguments, including all their own top diplomats and cooler heads warning them for decades: https://magarshak.com/blog/?p=397 https://magarshak.com/blog/?p=397 I have been warning about swarms of autonomous AI bots since 2015 for example. And saying that IPOs are toxic and should be replaced by regulated ICOs (of utility tokens). Both are hugely unpopular on HN. Some people may have knee-jerk reactions until they actually read the substance. But my other viewpoints might be a bit more palatable.
mandmandam 2y ago
Gotta love the backhanded compliments thrown at an absolute legend who we'd all be better off having listened to. > Not because we think what he says is right Few have ever been as right in their fields, or had such foresight. And even when proven correct, over and over again, this snideness draped in a nicety gets regurgitated on every RMS related post. It's a sign of deep sickness in the tech community that we tolerate it.

jraph 2y ago

I believe he would rather be described as free software's resident lunatic though.

userbinator 2y ago
He does emphasise source code and equate it to freedom, despite it possible to have freedom without open source (it's called public domain software.)
- jraph 2y ago
  I believe you are mixing up many things. > He does emphasise source code This is not relevant to the free software movement vs the open source movement. > it possible to have freedom without open source No, because the open source definition is more or less equivalent to the free software definition, and something not open source is therefore not free either. > it's called public domain software. Public domain software is necessarily¹ open source provided you have the source code. If you don't, you don't have freedom either. 1 ("well, actually"): many countries don't allow you to willingly put something into the public domain yourself, so in those country, it is not clear you have any right to use software someone put in the public domain because it's not in public domain in those country. You'd need an explicit license like CC0 to do this.
  - userbinator 2y ago
    No, because the open source definition is more or less equivalent to the free software definition, and something not open source is therefore not free either. Wrong. Public domain software is necessarily open source provided you have the source code. If you don't, you don't have freedom either. Wrong. This is precisely the idiotic focus on source code I'm talking about. Decompilers are even better now than they were in the 80s when people, even Stallman himself admits, would just disassemble and then modify software that way. As long as you have the power to change the bytes that make up the software, and doing that is legal, that should be enough to qualify as free software. How it was made doesn't matter one bit (pun intended).
    - jraph 2y ago
      You are conflating "open source" and "source available". You have a point with having the right to modify a program in the public domain through a decompilation of its machine code. But for a program to be free software, the ability to study and modify the program must be practical, legal is not enough. Sharing the source code is the minimum, we can't stoop so low as to consider a blob free software or open source just because you have the right to modify it. It's not that idiotic to put an emphasis on the source code. What are you trying to defend?
      - userbinator 2y ago
        What do you mean "stoop so low"? That's how it's always been in every other industry --- people can and do modify and fix things by learning how they work, without any form of assistance from the original manufacturer. I don't need to have the original design documentation to make or modify a new part for my car, boat, washing machine, HVAC system, etc. Why should software be any different? But for a program to be free software, the ability to study and modify the program must be practical, legal is not enough. It already is practical. As I mentioned, decompilers are only getting better and what we have now is far better than in the early days when people did "study and modify" just fine. I could also argue that a lot of current free software is not practical to "study and modify" even with the source code. Instead, the emphasis on source code has created a sort of learned helplessness (see above) that is definitely an impediment to true freedom. Companies have instead used "open source" as a form of virtue-signaling while adapting other user-hostile "security" features that make it so users can see the source and try to contribute to it (with their contributions only accepted if they toe the line) but can't actually make use of those changes themselves. Android, Firefox, and some other Google projects come to mind.
- npteljes 2y ago
  Free software is not just about potential freedom, it's about making sure that the software indeed stays free. Freedom is not quantitative, although we do speak in terms like more freedom and less freedom. In case of public domain, people are free to do whatever with the thing, including restricting its freedom. With free software, there are rules that prohibit restricting freedom. People who don't like rules can argue that this is less freedom, but history shows that a lack of rules only enable local warlords who then create their own rules, so, freedom with humans is something that needs to be granted somehow. And in case of software, it looks like the free software licenses are doing well.
  - jraph 2y ago
    I believe you are mixing up free software with copyleft. Permissive license are also free software licenses. (but indeed, the FSF and GNU projects, who defined free software, also push for copyleft for the reasons you mention).
    - npteljes 2y ago
      Yes, I think I did, thanks. It's actually copyleft that I described, not just free software. And yes I indeed also agree with the general idea of copyleft, for the reasons I described.

eesmith 2y ago

Open source's resident lunatic is esr, not rms.

rvense 2y ago
[flagged]
zer00eyz 2y ago
RMS's rider begs to differ: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3159210 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3159210
- mandmandam 2y ago
  Did you not read the top comments on that post all talking about how sensible that rider is, how moral, how much time it would save? Smearing people like this should not be acceptable on HN.
  - zer00eyz 2y ago
    Did you not read what he wrote? Between the good stuff there's enough oddity that it looks rather stallmanesqe... > A supply of tea with milk and sugar would be nice. If it is tea I really like, I like it without milk and sugar. With milk and sugar, any kind of tea is fine. I always bring tea bags with me, so if we use my tea bags, I will certainly like that tea without milk or sugar. You want tea? But don't say what kind? > If you can find a host for me that has a friendly parrot, I will be very very glad. If you can find someone who has a friendly parrot I can visit with, that will be nice too. > DON'T buy a parrot figuring that it will be a fun surprise for me. .... Friendly and Parrot is pretty much a dam unicorn if you know what's up. Why is your preference for Parrots in here? Is this legit something you think any of us should give a shit about? Brown M&M's was in there for a reason. I am not finding a parrot for you RMS. And, for the love of god, who bought him a parrot.
    - eesmith 2y ago
      > But don't say what kind? Which I interpret as "don't go out of your way to get special tea for me." > Why is your preference for Parrots in here? Because some people fawn over famous people, and once they hear through the grapevine that Stallman likes parrots, they'll do daft things like buy him a parrot for the visit, without realizing how horrible that is to the parrot.

arresin 2y ago

That “lunatic” is right more often than he is wrong.

EGreg 2y ago
Most people are

pyeri 2y ago

Stallman is the Socrates of our times who will be appreciated only centuries later perhaps by a distant generation. So far, everything he has said and written about surveillance capitalism and Big Tech's monopoly has turned out to be true. The subreddit /r/StallmanWasRight has aged phenomenally and also turned out to be true and prophetic.

dennis_jeeves2 2y ago
>Stallman is the Socrates of our times who will be appreciated only centuries later perhaps by a distant generation. Speculation: I believe that there were many in the league of Socrates who were never known.
- ivan_gammel 2y ago
  > I believe that there were many in the league of Socrates who were never known. Yes. History is choosing random names for preservation. If every century had just one worthy name or event, in 1 million years there will be 10000 of them, way too many to remember. Eventually the humankind will forget almost everything that we think is important about our culture. The information may not be lost, but it will be buried in some scientific databases. I bet that Stallman won’t last even a century. He is a pioneer, naive and controversial, but the main works on ethics of software, copyright etc are yet to be written, and the names of those authors will shine brighter.
  - dennis_jeeves2 2y ago
    Extrapolating tangentially along lines of what you just, overall people _think_ that there is an upward trajectory of overall wisdom because of events in the past. My observation is that it is not. Th average human memory is very, very short.
EGreg 2y ago
This is my cause celebre: http://laweekly.com/restoring-healthy-communities/ http://laweekly.com/restoring-healthy-communities/ I have also been right about a lot of things :-P from a left-libertarian perspective: https://magarshak.com/blog/?p=362 https://magarshak.com/blog/?p=362 and also lack the capital and clout to make a bigger impact and prevent huge mistakes: 2023: https://magarshak.com/blog/?p=424 https://magarshak.com/blog/?p=424 2014: https://magarshak.com/blog/?p=174 https://magarshak.com/blog/?p=174 unfortunately, politicians and crowds don’t always listen to sensible rational arguments, including all their own top diplomats and cooler heads warning them for decades: https://magarshak.com/blog/?p=397 https://magarshak.com/blog/?p=397 I have been warning about swarms of autonomous AI bots since 2015 for example. And saying that IPOs are toxic and should be replaced by regulated ICOs (of utility tokens). Both are hugely unpopular on HN. Some people may have knee-jerk reactions until they actually read the substance. But my other viewpoints might be a bit more palatable.

mandmandam 2y ago

Gotta love the backhanded compliments thrown at an absolute legend who we'd all be better off having listened to. > Not because we think what he says is right Few have ever been as right in their fields, or had such foresight. And even when proven correct, over and over again, this snideness draped in a nicety gets regurgitated on every RMS related post. It's a sign of deep sickness in the tech community that we tolerate it.