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

71–80 of 203 posts

Re: A short critique of Stallmanism

#71

Post by zekevermillion »

vivekd wrote: post #66

I don't agree with everything in this article but I think a part of it really put into words something I had been feeling for some time. I had always found it easy to agree with Stallman's view of free software. I think most reasonable people who didn't have a stake in proprietary software would agree with him. But, something about Stallman that made it hard for me to really take his movement seriously enough to want…

Stallman has compromised in some ways, even when it comes to using proprietary software. For example, before there was grub I believe he made an exception and used non-free bios.

Ultiamtely, even RMS seems to suggest a convenience standard. If the tradeoff is too harsh, at some point it is permissible to use proprietary software. And this is even leaving aside the various non-relative exceptions he has made, such as use of proprietary software in devices that are not primarily for general purpose computing.

So even RMS is OK with proprietary software where there are no free alternatives, or where using proprietary software is somehow not part of a "computer". But now that there is a good free system in Gnu + Linux, the user has no excuse for using proprietary programs in general computing. There is still a sacrifice to live by RMS' standards, but it is relatively small compared with, say, the sacrifices demanded of civil rights campaigners in the 60s.

Of course, one could debate whether reasonable free alternatives exist in certain areas. Perhaps to RMS it is only a minor inconvenience to use only free software to view web pages, and to avoid websites that run proprietary scripts or that spy on users. What kind of moral weakling would betray the cause of freedom for the convenience of one-click ordering of crap on Amazon. The obvious weakness to this argument is that there are surely people for which proprietary software offers convenience that they view as essential to their lives. This is a hard problem, both in philosophy and practice.

Re: A short critique of Stallmanism

#72

Post by cbdfghh »

IMHO, Stallman made two mistakes:

1. He moved into politics (which is in my HO, one of the failure points of a lot of tech people. Everyone has a right to an opinion, but certain people have more talent at politics than others, and certain people have more talents at code than others).

He's a great programmer, and could have pushed the FSF community directly by committing and improving code. And even if he can't code anymore, he could have focused on fund-raising/raising awareness in winnable (as in, not facebook)/worthwhile (as in, not HURD) battles, where others would benefit also.

Like a free Flash or free CAD (which are "FSF High priority projects", though practically dead).

What new coding projects were they involved in since HURD started (OK. Replicant.)?

And how did his political rants help the FSF (and the Free Software movement as a whole) lately?

2. He doesn't let the FSF be larger than him.

Who's their 2nd in command?

Who'll take over after he passes on?

What will the FSF look like in 30 years?

Re: A short critique of Stallmanism

#73

Post by michaelmrose »

sprafa wrote: post #4

essentially brilliant. I've been thinking more and more about how Stallman has blocked perhaps the only effective way to make companies make more open-source software: allow DRM to work properly with open-source code. That is, the main issue with making open-source software is that anyone can copy it, thus placing the value of your software at 0. But if DRM effectively put a a stop to this, by not allowing you to run…

Keep in mind that access to the source code not only to your software but the OS itself would mean the ability to modify or remove any locks you imagine are supposed to keep people from running unlicensed code. Given the way a lot of hardware works it probably requires licensing hardware and drivers as well lest someone sell dongles that interfere with the operation of the OS in such a way as to compromise its checks on the users freedom.

Thus the situation you imagine requires that the manufacturer only allow specifically state or corporate sanctioned hardware/software to run after all how do you tell the difference between random free software off the net and non free software that has had its license and identifying information stripped.

Of course now that we have all this great control over what OS/software you are allowed to run we can use our newfound control over the primary tool for communication, commerce, and culture for the entire human race to exercise any sort of control we want.

So all we have to do is implement 1984 and all the tools and systems required to enslave the human race so software makers a truly microscopic portion of the human race can make a few more pennies and thus be inspired to share with us the blueprints for some of our toys.

If this seems sarcastic maybe it is but you truly can't implement an effective way to give the user the source without also providing the freedom to use the software without paying without effectively taking away ownership of the device from the user.

What you are proposing is a terrible idea and you and those like you are truly a threat to the future of the human race. I hope you think through this more fully.

Re: A short critique of Stallmanism

#74

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

swhipple wrote: post #46
thristian wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wit…

To add on to your point, this is called the 'paradox of freedom' -- that you cannot have both unlimited freedom and ensure freedom for the future. At the end of WWII, Karl Popper defended state interventionism with an argument citing the paradox of tolerance [1], and claimed ensuring a tolerant society in the name of tolerance, even when paradoxically intolerant. A parallel argument can be made in Stallman's case for…

That's a general point, but I think it missed the criticism that the FSF's definition of software freedom fails on its own terms.

In practice the "freedom" is exclusive to a highly educated and exclusive technocracy. The same freedoms are not available to the general public.

This may seem pedantic, but IMO it undermines the argument about software freedom, because Stallman has never shown the slightest interest in making software that the general public can modify, or in designing, promoting, or doing anything at all to encourage the existence of such software.

The idea that if you want to promote software freedom you need to make tools and systems that ordinary people can modify - preferably without learning Emacs - doesn't seem to have occurred to him. It seems that in Stallman's world the public are supposed to become MIT-grade hackers before they can earn their freedom.

You could argue that software is hard, and that's just how it is. But I'm not so sure that's true. It's not obvious that the hardness of software isn't a side effect of the culture around it, and not something unavoidable in the process of development.

The reality is that there has been almost no serious CS research into making accessible user-modifiable systems. FSF would be more convincing if there had been at least some token effort in that direction. But instead FSF has always promoted a rather old-fashioned and nostalgic view of computing, where everything happens on the command line, and development means hand-editing source code and running a build system to create a local binary.

That was more or less the only model around in the 1960s and 70s, but things have moved on since then. Unfortunately the FSF mostly hasn't.

Given that, the question is - what does software freedom mean to users now? If source code doesn't actually equal freedom - what does?

Re: A short critique of Stallmanism

#75

Post by cbdfghh »

jordigh wrote: post #67
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…

What is it that you want to do that the GPL will not allow you? How is the GPL taking your freedom or society's freedom away?

Personally, I find people complaining about the GPL's lack of freedom a bit hypocritical.

What does the GPL prevent you from doing?

As a user, nothing. As far as I (a user) is concerned, Mozilla's MPL/GPL, bash's GPL3 and VSCode MIT licenses are all equally free (I can use them and distribute them).

So what problem do programmers have with GPL?

You can't make a derivative closed source work.

So you want to make a non-free work, fine. I'm not a GPL-or-bust guy.

But are _your_ programs free?

Re: A short critique of Stallmanism

#76

Post by cbdfghh »

sprafa wrote: post #4

essentially brilliant. I've been thinking more and more about how Stallman has blocked perhaps the only effective way to make companies make more open-source software: allow DRM to work properly with open-source code. That is, the main issue with making open-source software is that anyone can copy it, thus placing the value of your software at 0. But if DRM effectively put a a stop to this, by not allowing you to run…

>I've been thinking more and more about how Stallman has blocked perhaps the only effective way to make companies make more open-source software: allow DRM to work properly with open-source code.

That's a feature, not a bug.

He's not interested in creating a "commons" for companies.

He's interested in having his code help users, and create an incentive for companies to create code which will help users.

If you look at it from that perspective, with DRM you might as well be closed source.

-----------

Oh. And DRM encumbered code is arguably closed source.

Imagine a license - You can copy and distribute source, compile source, but not use your compiled binaries.

That wouldn't fit either the OSS or FSF definition of Open Source/Free Software.

But that's what DRM does. It effectively says that you cannot run this software on your devise.

Re: A short critique of Stallmanism

#77

Post by quitspamming »

I'm surprised the HN crowd isn't calling this out for what it is, anti capitalist BS. I've seen people talk about tactics, DRM, ethics, but the author's point was Stallman is right expect for one thing: profit. Stallman tries to explain over and over again how free software can be profitable, and the author of this post's whole point is, "nah, it can't be. Want free software? You need socialism."

Stupid article pushing tired socialism, in old arguments.

Re: A short critique of Stallmanism

#78

Post by prodigal_erik »

BuuQu9hu wrote: post #70
krapp wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You are ignoring the fact that users exist in society, around them there will be programmers who may be friends, colleagues or consultants. Some of those will be willing to modify the software gratis, for a favour or for money. Others will be willing to teach the non-programmers enough to be able to make the changes they need.

This. You wouldn't want a car with the hood welded shut. You can take it to a third-party mechanic rather than being at the mercy of the dealer (who would prefer you replace the car), and that's valuable even if you don't have the knowledge or tools to repair the car personally.

Re: A short critique of Stallmanism

#79

Post by prodigal_erik »

cbdfghh wrote: post #75
jordigh wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is it that you want to do that the GPL will not allow you? How is the GPL taking your freedom or society's freedom away?

Personally, I find people complaining about the GPL's lack of freedom a bit hypocritical. What does the GPL prevent you from doing? As a user, nothing. As far as I (a user) is concerned, Mozilla's MPL/GPL, bash's GPL3 and VSCode MIT licenses are all equally free (I can use them and distribute them). So what problem do programmers have with GPL? You can't make a derivative closed source work. So you want to make a non…

It's not just that they want to make a non-free work, it's that they want my help, offering nothing in return.

Re: A short critique of Stallmanism

#80

Post by Mouq »

quitspamming wrote: post #77

I'm surprised the HN crowd isn't calling this out for what it is, anti capitalist BS. I've seen people talk about tactics, DRM, ethics, but the author's point was Stallman is right expect for one thing: profit. Stallman tries to explain over and over again how free software can be profitable, and the author of this post's whole point is, "nah, it can't be. Want free software? You need socialism." Stupid article pushi…

Don't really see why it needs to be called out as such. It's pretty explicitly radical leftist. Is Hacker News exclusively capitalist now? TBF I tend to avoid this site, so maybe it is.

If you think materialist analysis isn't useful, well, maybe it's not useful to you. But geez, the author didn't even get into, e.g., Marxist analysis or anything so controversial :P

Post reply on HN