Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A short critique of Stallmanism

jancorazza.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 203 posts

Re: A short critique of Stallmanism

#31

Post by icebraining »

throwaway729 wrote: post #23
matthewmacleod wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are there? I would believe that there are many who don't care, or many who are dismissive at a rather shallow level. But I'm not aware of having seen a good, intellectual critique of "free" software.

There are many criticisms of the various freedoms embodied by Stallmanism's notion of free software (to borrow a term from the article). A thorough rebuttal of the entire viewpoint requires, IMO: 1. An ardent defense of capitalism and private property. 2. A critique of open source as a superior software development methodology. You'll find shades of (1) in various defenses of competing open source licenses (e.g. BSD)…

I don't think (2) is necessary to rebut Stallmanism - development methodology was never really a part of Free Software - but I don't agree that (1) is enough. One can defend capitalism and (physical) private property without defending copyright and patents †. In fact, it could be argued that they're anti-private-property, by preventing one from using one's stuff as one sees fit.

† https://mises.org/library/against-intellectual-property-0

Re: A short critique of Stallmanism

#32

Post by icebraining »

krapp wrote: post #27
geofft wrote: post #10

Thanks for posting this. I like this a lot and it clearly argues a lot of what I don't like about Stallman's free software advocacy. Free software isn't a moral good in itself, and non-free software isn't a moral evil in itself; software is a tool for accomplishing things in the world, including moral or immoral things. When Stallman says that it's better to have no software to do a task than non-free software, it so…

Regarding freedom 4, I've always assumed (possibly erroneously) that Stallman envisioned "software" as being limited more or less exclusively to Unixlike C programs. It really doesn't make a lot of sense as an axiom if you assume software will eventually become too complex to be comprehensible to a single individual, or that the typical software user won't require a working knowledge of CS and C compiler and be able…

I really disagree with this view that one has to have the skill to understand and edit the code to benefit the Four Freedoms. The fact that everyone who gets a copy has that Freedom is the important part. How many use Cyanogenmod without even knowing what a compiler is? How would that be possible without Freedom #4?

Re: A short critique of Stallmanism

#34

Post by krapp »

icebraining wrote: post #32
krapp wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regarding freedom 4, I've always assumed (possibly erroneously) that Stallman envisioned "software" as being limited more or less exclusively to Unixlike C programs. It really doesn't make a lot of sense as an axiom if you assume software will eventually become too complex to be comprehensible to a single individual, or that the typical software user won't require a working knowledge of CS and C compiler and be able…

I really disagree with this view that one has to have the skill to understand and edit the code to benefit the Four Freedoms. The fact that everyone who gets a copy has that Freedom is the important part. How many use Cyanogenmod without even knowing what a compiler is? How would that be possible without Freedom #4?

Users can't benefit from the fourth freedom, specifically the right to republish their own modifications to their own software, without having the skill to understand and edit that software to begin with.

Re: A short critique of Stallmanism

#35

Post by wmf »

greyman wrote: post #33

One issue I see with so-called free software is the coming era of AI. The software might be as free as RMS would like, but we still would not be able to decipher what exactly it does.

For this reason I wouldn't be surprised to see the FSF advocate using machine learning only as a last resort when normal algorithms can't be used.

Re: A short critique of Stallmanism

#36

Post by bluejekyll »

wanderingjew wrote: post #18

Oh, this is hilarious. The art for this blog post was taken from here: http://hackaday.com/2016/01/13/stallmans-one-mistake/ This art was taken without crediting the artist, and without permission from either the artist or the publisher.

I agree that this is bad form, though, as the original article is very supportive of the Free Software movement, the author may have assumed a Gratis usage of the image.

I could not find on Hackaday any specific information about using their content, or not, but they do explicitly mention their general copyrights in their footer...

Edit: what I did not say, is that because there is nothing explicit it can not be assumed that you can use it without reference. Accreditation should be given where asked, technically it can not be used unless it was agreed upon. That's what my ... meant.

Re: A short critique of Stallmanism

#37

Post by pksadiq »

greyman wrote: post #14

> Stallman's rhetoric is filled with this problematic logic on all layers: from trying to correct other people's terminology Yes, this is my main obstacle accepting RMS. In my opinion, he took the word "free", made a term "free software", and described it in accordance with his agenda, while what he advocated only partially conforms to the meaning of the word "free" or "freedom". There are certainly licenses offering…

>There are certainly licenses offering more freedom than GPL v3.

It's up to you what 'freedom' really is.

For me, I wish my smartband had more features than it does now. I wish my non-smart phone vibrate when the opponent attends the call. Lots of my wish (and many others) won't be fulfilled as long as there isn't an easy way to modify the underlying software/firmware. I call that 'freedom'. Most of these limitations comes from the software/firmware in it.

[AL]GPLv3 assures the freedom to its users. And every person is a user. A developer is a user of IDE, compiler, build tools, OS, etc.

It is the freedom to control what [s]he own and not to be in control.

Re: A short critique of Stallmanism

#38

Post by thristian »

greyman wrote: post #21
milesrout wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>There are certainly licenses offering more freedom than GPL v3. Only if you consider 'freedom' to include the right to take something and make it closed source with or without changes. Only if you consider 'freedom' to include the right to restrict end user freedom. The GPL protects the freedom of users. If I license something as GPL then that means I'm saying "I want anyone to be able to use this, and if you want t…

I don't know, I don't feel I am in some camp. His license grants some permissions and forbids something else. I just don't feel the word "freedom" fits into what he wants to achieve. Just let's call it some other way and I am fine with it. This is just grabbing a positive word, twist it, and use for his own agenda. And I am not willing to play such a game.

Let's imagine a world exactly like our current world, except that I am allowed to punch anybody in the nose at any time, with no negative consequences for myself. Is that world "more free" than this one?

My point is that "freedom" is a messy concept, and the freedom to do one thing (punch somebody in the nose, or to make proprietary software) is often at odds with the freedom to do another (go about your business without being punched, or to control the software that affects your life). That's not RMS twisting words, that's just an awkward philosophical truth.

I guess you could say that the term "free software" is biased because it emphasises society-wide freedoms over personal freedoms, but I think it fits nicely alongside more widely held ideas like "only police should be allowed to fight crime" and "politicians should not write laws that directly benefit themselves". Both those ideas significantly limit personal freedom, yet they're very important parts of a free society.

Re: A short critique of Stallmanism

#39

Post by theseoafs »

greyman wrote: post #21
milesrout wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>There are certainly licenses offering more freedom than GPL v3. Only if you consider 'freedom' to include the right to take something and make it closed source with or without changes. Only if you consider 'freedom' to include the right to restrict end user freedom. The GPL protects the freedom of users. If I license something as GPL then that means I'm saying "I want anyone to be able to use this, and if you want t…

I don't know, I don't feel I am in some camp. His license grants some permissions and forbids something else. I just don't feel the word "freedom" fits into what he wants to achieve. Just let's call it some other way and I am fine with it. This is just grabbing a positive word, twist it, and use for his own agenda. And I am not willing to play such a game.

I mean, obviously because some system gives you more freedoms than others doesn't mean it's the system that best preserves freedom. In the USA we don't have the freedom to enslave people but that doesn't make us less free.

For the record I'm not an RMS-ite and I don't actually mean to compare proprietary software with slavery.

Re: A short critique of Stallmanism

#40

Post by hackermailman »

I've always considered Stallman as somebody who strategizes in decades instead of tomorrow. He sees a future of locked devices that imprison people and so seems radical to everybody stuck in the state of present day. I don't know if his strategy will work but it seems better than any compromises that could lead to dumb terminals running proprietary webasm binaries watching everything you do.
Post reply on HN