5 ms·

It's a pain to see "Dr" next to bullshit like this: > "Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software." You don't like skype, fine. I am prety sur

It's a pain to see "Dr" next to bullshit like this: > "Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software." You don't like skype, fine. I am prety sure what it enables millions of people to do: freely communicate no matter the distance, but I don't really get what freedoms it denies. Do I lose som freedom just but installing it, or must I use it for that to take an effect?

chrisdevereux 13y ago
> Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software. > Use Ekiga or an ordinary phone call. It made me wonder what's free-er about an ordinary phone call. Presumably, most of the software the phone companies use is also proprietary. Does it become less non-free if somebody else runs the software? Or maybe it shifts the moral burden of using something non-free to somebody else?
- josu 13y ago
  Isn't there an option for decentralized P2P communication?
  - chrisdevereux 13y ago
    Sorry, should have pasted the full quote. Edited.
    - josu 13y ago
      No problem, it was an honest question, I wasn't sure if such software existed.
  - bjelkeman-again 13y ago
    Until something like Ekiga does multipart conference calls, a minimum of 10 nodes and more voice only, then it is hard for me to switch from something like Skype.
    - vorce 13y ago
      Me and my buddies recently switched from Skype to Mumble+IRC. Works great, I like this setup way better. The big downside is of course that it requires a server.
      - bjelkeman-again 13y ago
        Yeah, I was discussing that with my colleagues the other day.
- revelation 13y ago
  He explains this here: http://stallman.org/stallman-computing.html http://stallman.org/stallman-computing.html Paragraph starting with "I firmly refuse.."
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
- andor 13y ago
  It made me wonder what's free-er about an ordinary phone call. You can use any phone that you like to place a call. You can even build your own phone. (Depending on your choice of phone you might have to rely on non-free parts like GSM voice codecs.) You have the freedom of choosing between multiple service providers, all of which are interoperable. If you want, you can even get access to the underlying SS7 phone network and be your own provider.
tunesmith 13y ago
Stallman has a page on this that explains why he says this: http://stallman.org/skype.html http://stallman.org/skype.html
swah 13y ago
OTOH he wrote software you and I probably couldn't... and gave it for free.
new299 13y ago
You can choose to be denied a freedom, quite obviously. If you choose to use Skype you are granted the ability to make free Skype calls. You are denied the freedom to: * Freely distribute * Modify * Read the source code. Among others, so it's a trade off. One that Stallman disagrees with and believes denies you too many freedoms. Stallman is a weird guy, and hardly a pragmatist. But I don't think the things he says can be described as Bullshit, they are largely internally consistant. And to be frank, given the NSA revelations, I think we need rather more weird idealists than less. Dr new299
- rimantas 13y ago
  No matter how you spin is, the end result is: installing Skype gives me more freedom than not having it. That'a all. There is no freedom it denies.
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    You don't, mostly[1], lose freedom by installing Skype. You lose freedom by becoming reliant on Skype, and by installing (and using) Skype you are putting yourself at significant risk of that. [1] You also may lose some control over your system, which may limit your freedom. At the extreme, consider malware. Recent, relevant Dilbert comic that I assume is an exaggeration: http://www.dilbert.com/strips/comic/2013-11-06 http://www.dilbert.com/strips/comic/2013-11-06
interpol_p 13y ago
It's extremely hard to agree with Stallman, but you have to admire the fact that he lives by his principles. He truly believes the world would be a better place if all software was free, and he lives his life in support of that. People rarely devote their lives to a single principle like that. Skype might be convenient and wonderful in the short term, Stallman believes that supporting it is not the right step for society in the long term.
terhechte 13y ago
Freedom, in Stallmans words, is not meant to be 'free as in beer' (like free skype calls). Instead he refers to the freedom to read, modify, understand, and ultimately choose everything about the software that you use. I.e. be able to answer these questions (say about Skype): - Is any communication not properly encrypted - Is your communication being spied on / being recorded - Is there a way to add feature "x" to the application - Is there a way to remove feature "x" from the application - Is there a way to use the application on your specific hard / software With Skype, none of that is possible. You can't see what's happening with your Skype calls internally, you can't see if there's somebody else listening. If Skype comes out with a new interface, and you really don't like it, you can't change it, if Skype removes support for older operating systems that you just happen to have to use because your IT department still wants to run Windows XP, then you can't support, change or fix any of it. Of course, Skype is a free product, so you may say the proverbial never look a gift horse in the mouth, but Emacs is also a free product, and provides all these benefits I listed above. You have to understand Stallman as someone who is concerned about the future, not so much about the now. Right now using Skype is all fine, but imagine the world in 20 years time, when everything is connected to software, and every movement you make is tracked. Wouldn't it be nice if all the software then would be fully transparent, allowing you to see every detail that is happening, and change it all to your liking, without being afraid of what happens if you do this or that. Sounds like an utopist dream right? And Stallman is the guy who tries to fight for it, however unwinnable the fight may seem.
- guygurari 13y ago
  Fair enough. But then he says: > Use Ekiga or an ordinary phone call. Let's go over your list for an ordinary phone call. Here the 'client app' is your phone terminal, and the 'server' is the phone operator. > - Is any communication not properly encrypted Yes, it's not encrypted at all. > - Is your communication being spied on / being recorded I would say yes, at a similar level of probability as a skype call. > - Is there a way to add feature "x" to the application > - Is there a way to remove feature "x" from the application The specs for the phone terminal are not open-source, so you can only do that with some hacking. The same is true for skype, even though there it might be more complicated technically. > - Is there a way to use the application on your specific hard / software Irrelevant for a physical phone. The main difference between the skype client and a phone, is that a phone follows an open protocol, and therefore you can build your own. This is the only reason I can think of why using a phone is 'free' while using skype is not. But I think that if the skype protocol was made open, Stallman would still argue that it is not free and therefore should not be used, and therefore I do not understand his argument.
curiousdannii 13y ago
It denies freedom to the software more than freedom to the person. For copyleft licences the software is most important; for permissive licences people are most important.
baby 13y ago
there is no relation between "Dr" and his rant about Skype. You would not believe the number of PHD who are not that intelligent (to be nice). Also Stallman is a master in its profession and "Dr", who is just acquired by doing a Phd, seems to me like it's not doing him enough justice.

chrisdevereux 13y ago

> Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software. > Use Ekiga or an ordinary phone call. It made me wonder what's free-er about an ordinary phone call. Presumably, most of the software the phone companies use is also proprietary. Does it become less non-free if somebody else runs the software? Or maybe it shifts the moral burden of using something non-free to somebody else?

josu 13y ago
Isn't there an option for decentralized P2P communication?
- chrisdevereux 13y ago
  Sorry, should have pasted the full quote. Edited.
  - josu 13y ago
    No problem, it was an honest question, I wasn't sure if such software existed.
- bjelkeman-again 13y ago
  Until something like Ekiga does multipart conference calls, a minimum of 10 nodes and more voice only, then it is hard for me to switch from something like Skype.
  - vorce 13y ago
    Me and my buddies recently switched from Skype to Mumble+IRC. Works great, I like this setup way better. The big downside is of course that it requires a server.
    - bjelkeman-again 13y ago
      Yeah, I was discussing that with my colleagues the other day.
revelation 13y ago
He explains this here: http://stallman.org/stallman-computing.html http://stallman.org/stallman-computing.html Paragraph starting with "I firmly refuse.."
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
andor 13y ago
It made me wonder what's free-er about an ordinary phone call. You can use any phone that you like to place a call. You can even build your own phone. (Depending on your choice of phone you might have to rely on non-free parts like GSM voice codecs.) You have the freedom of choosing between multiple service providers, all of which are interoperable. If you want, you can even get access to the underlying SS7 phone network and be your own provider.

tunesmith 13y ago

Stallman has a page on this that explains why he says this: http://stallman.org/skype.html http://stallman.org/skype.html

swah 13y ago

OTOH he wrote software you and I probably couldn't... and gave it for free.

new299 13y ago

You can choose to be denied a freedom, quite obviously. If you choose to use Skype you are granted the ability to make free Skype calls. You are denied the freedom to: * Freely distribute * Modify * Read the source code. Among others, so it's a trade off. One that Stallman disagrees with and believes denies you too many freedoms. Stallman is a weird guy, and hardly a pragmatist. But I don't think the things he says can be described as Bullshit, they are largely internally consistant. And to be frank, given the NSA revelations, I think we need rather more weird idealists than less. Dr new299

rimantas 13y ago
No matter how you spin is, the end result is: installing Skype gives me more freedom than not having it. That'a all. There is no freedom it denies.
- dllthomas 13y ago
  You don't, mostly[1], lose freedom by installing Skype. You lose freedom by becoming reliant on Skype, and by installing (and using) Skype you are putting yourself at significant risk of that. [1] You also may lose some control over your system, which may limit your freedom. At the extreme, consider malware. Recent, relevant Dilbert comic that I assume is an exaggeration: http://www.dilbert.com/strips/comic/2013-11-06 http://www.dilbert.com/strips/comic/2013-11-06

interpol_p 13y ago

It's extremely hard to agree with Stallman, but you have to admire the fact that he lives by his principles. He truly believes the world would be a better place if all software was free, and he lives his life in support of that. People rarely devote their lives to a single principle like that. Skype might be convenient and wonderful in the short term, Stallman believes that supporting it is not the right step for society in the long term.

terhechte 13y ago

Freedom, in Stallmans words, is not meant to be 'free as in beer' (like free skype calls). Instead he refers to the freedom to read, modify, understand, and ultimately choose everything about the software that you use. I.e. be able to answer these questions (say about Skype): - Is any communication not properly encrypted - Is your communication being spied on / being recorded - Is there a way to add feature "x" to the application - Is there a way to remove feature "x" from the application - Is there a way to use the application on your specific hard / software With Skype, none of that is possible. You can't see what's happening with your Skype calls internally, you can't see if there's somebody else listening. If Skype comes out with a new interface, and you really don't like it, you can't change it, if Skype removes support for older operating systems that you just happen to have to use because your IT department still wants to run Windows XP, then you can't support, change or fix any of it. Of course, Skype is a free product, so you may say the proverbial never look a gift horse in the mouth, but Emacs is also a free product, and provides all these benefits I listed above. You have to understand Stallman as someone who is concerned about the future, not so much about the now. Right now using Skype is all fine, but imagine the world in 20 years time, when everything is connected to software, and every movement you make is tracked. Wouldn't it be nice if all the software then would be fully transparent, allowing you to see every detail that is happening, and change it all to your liking, without being afraid of what happens if you do this or that. Sounds like an utopist dream right? And Stallman is the guy who tries to fight for it, however unwinnable the fight may seem.

guygurari 13y ago
Fair enough. But then he says: > Use Ekiga or an ordinary phone call. Let's go over your list for an ordinary phone call. Here the 'client app' is your phone terminal, and the 'server' is the phone operator. > - Is any communication not properly encrypted Yes, it's not encrypted at all. > - Is your communication being spied on / being recorded I would say yes, at a similar level of probability as a skype call. > - Is there a way to add feature "x" to the application > - Is there a way to remove feature "x" from the application The specs for the phone terminal are not open-source, so you can only do that with some hacking. The same is true for skype, even though there it might be more complicated technically. > - Is there a way to use the application on your specific hard / software Irrelevant for a physical phone. The main difference between the skype client and a phone, is that a phone follows an open protocol, and therefore you can build your own. This is the only reason I can think of why using a phone is 'free' while using skype is not. But I think that if the skype protocol was made open, Stallman would still argue that it is not free and therefore should not be used, and therefore I do not understand his argument.

curiousdannii 13y ago

It denies freedom to the software more than freedom to the person. For copyleft licences the software is most important; for permissive licences people are most important.

baby 13y ago

there is no relation between "Dr" and his rant about Skype. You would not believe the number of PHD who are not that intelligent (to be nice). Also Stallman is a master in its profession and "Dr", who is just acquired by doing a Phd, seems to me like it's not doing him enough justice.