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

Richard Stallman Was Right All Along

osnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 236 posts

Re: Richard Stallman Was Right All Along

#111

Post by spodek »

pyrhho wrote: post #80
spodek wrote: post #53

"I, too, disregarded Stallman as way too extreme... Only a short while ago I would've declared this as pure paranoia - but with all that's been going on recently, it's no longer paranoia." I considered him extreme until I thought more about it, then came to agree with him on most major points... ... that was in 1993. Glad to see others here.

Since you recognised this issue so long ago, I'm sure you have some recommendations regarding how we can solve it?

I'm not sure which issue you mean by "this issue," because the freedoms involved in free software touch many issues.

I also can't recommend for others not knowing their needs and interests, but I can tell you some things I do. Maybe some things will translate to what you do.

I use free software as much as possible, running gnu/linux on my computers since 1996. I stopped dual booting about ten years after that.

I give some time to support freedombox -- http://joshuaspodek.com/tag/freedombox -- when I can.

I keep apprised of activities of Stallman, Eben Moglen, and a few others.

I attend conferences when I can, like Debconf.

I hardly code, but I've released a bit GPL'ed.

I support and contribute to Wikipedia.

I talk about free software to people who want to know more.

My art pieces -- http://joshuaspodek.com/tag/unionsquareinmotion and http://joshuaspodek.com/new_bryant_park_in_motion_videos -- run free software.

There's a short list. I'm not trying to save the world all by myself, just to avoid infringing on other people's freedom. All of the above together adds up to a modest amount of time and other resources. I have other priorities for most of my time, but, as I mentioned, I think by making myself aware of the issues, I've reduced how much I'd infringe on others' freedoms.

If you're looking for suggestions, I think asking the questions you asked in an open-minded way will start you off. I expect the more you do, the more you'll learn you can do.

Re: Richard Stallman Was Right All Along

#112

Post by zem »

sunkencity wrote: post #54

Good article but I disagree that supporting "Android (not Google) even though you like IOS" is a valid strategy for openness. android is all about monitoring and datamining the user. Sad to see the good old openmoko project die.

even maemo and meego were a large step in the right direction.

Re: Richard Stallman Was Right All Along

#113

Post by jonhendry »

hammerdr wrote: post #78
jonhendry wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"It's extremely likely, given the criticality of the legislation to the military, that his veto would have been overridden by Congress. " Maybe. Or they could drop the problematic bit and redo it. Either way, the paychecks would go out.

You have to understand that the system isn't that simple. Bills do not exist in a vacuum. You cannot view these things as independent and completely unrelated to everything else going around it. Yes, the President could veto the bill but then the next few months becomes about him veto-ing a military appropriations bill. He would then need to explain to the American public why the freedoms it eroded were unacceptable…

"Yes, the President could veto the bill but then the next few months becomes about him veto-ing a military appropriations bill. He would then need to explain to the American public why the freedoms it eroded were unacceptable and that their loved ones serving this country couldn't buy milk for a month. It would consume a significant amount of time and resources."

Sure, but running against Congress is often a very good thing. Especially when their approval ratings are so low. And much of Obama's putative 'base' would have preferred he veto it.

Obama could probably make the case by going on Fox and asking if he should have the power to send Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity to prison without a trial for an indefinite amount of time. "Stop me before I send Glenn Beck to Gitmo".

Re: Richard Stallman Was Right All Along

#114

Post by rd108 »

scott_w wrote: post #44
CPlatypus wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The Obama administration requested the indefinite detention provisions." [citation needed]

3rd Paragraph http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/jan/... Skip to about 0:25 where the fun stuff starts. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHaJrnlqCgo

thank you.

Re: Richard Stallman Was Right All Along

#115

Post by jonhendry »

morpher wrote: post #73
morpher wrote: post #57

In Sec. 1021 (the one about indefinite detention power), it clearly states: (e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States. So, how does this give the president the supposed power to detain US citizen…

Ok. I see now how this can be abused. Is it saying: (A) United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the US, or (any other persons who are caputred or arrested in the US) OR B) (United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the US, or any other persons) who are caputred or arrested in the US If one reads this as B, then once a citizen accused of being a terrorist steps foot outside of the country, they are s…

"If one reads this as B, then once a citizen accused of being a terrorist steps foot outside of the country, they are screwed."

Seems like they already are.

Re: Richard Stallman Was Right All Along

#116

Post by wtracy »

oconnor0 wrote: post #9
yuhong wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But remember this was just one provision of a larger bill, and I don't think line-by-line veto is possible anymore.

Then you veto the entire bill - explaining why.

Your explanation will be edited down to two-second soundbites by the media that manage to miss your point entirely. The opposition will completely ignore your argument completely and repeatedly tell the party faithful that you vetoed the bill that would have given the hard-working American servicemen and women their deserved salaries.

(If you're really lucky, you'll be accused of "flip-flopping"--because Real Men stake out a position of being Pro-X or Anti-Y and never, ever budge.)

There is no such thing as a nuanced opinion in Washington politics today.

Re: Richard Stallman Was Right All Along

#117

Post by jonhendry »

pingswept wrote: post #109
jonhendry wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, he wrote a scary story. What has he done to promote laws to prevent what he fears, and to fight laws that lead to what he fears?

From what I understand, RMS has spent a large fraction of his working life in the last 20 years traveling the world to speak to people about free software. He could be dismissed as too extreme, but dismissing him as someone who hasn't fought for his beliefs is way off. His speaking schedule is often published in the FSF newsletter; he appears to speak to a group about free software around once per week.

That's just it, he spoke about free software, not these larger issues. And getting people to adopt free software is an orthogonal issue.

Even if GPL software had 99% market share in the US, and everyone in the country were running the same kind of computer as Stallman, the government could still step in and pass all kinds of draconian laws.

Getting regular people to adopt the GPL ethos is fine, but if the ethos doesn't permeate government as well, Stallman might as well be touring around promoting the Spice Girls for all governments will be prevented from doing intrusive things.

Re: Richard Stallman Was Right All Along

#118

Post by bestes »

Tycho wrote: post #19

I just don't see the relationship between government overstepping the mark... and buying a proprietary product form a company you respect, because you want to use the product and are willing to sacrifice the desirable but non-essential quality of unfettered access to its innards. ...OK, actually I do see the connection. The suggestion is probably that if the technology is not totally open, you don't know how much pow…

How about printers that secretly record tracking info on each page you print? Or the code in PhotoShop that makes sure I can't scan money? We know about these now, but only because they were discovered. I'm not sure if it is even possible to buy a printer with out this "technology".

These are only examples: how about when we find that the government has not only been tracking us via our cellphones, but also activating the mic and activly collecting data? It just is not possible to "choose" not to be spied on, unless you know all the ways the spying is done.

Re: Richard Stallman Was Right All Along

#119

Post by spodek »

jonhendry wrote: post #105
sadfasdf wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html That essay is what made me a firm supporter.

Okay, he wrote a scary story. What has he done to promote laws to prevent what he fears, and to fight laws that lead to what he fears?

He co-authored a license that anyone can use to share software, prose, and other copyrightable material.

That license, and others derived from it, are at the root of most non-proprietary software and many types of user-created content. Using the internet means you've used software that likely could not have been created without such licenses. Wikipedia is another example of something using a license derived from the one he helped create.

Helping create flourishing communities of people legally sharing each others' work, collectively creating great works, influences legislation. Imagine if no licenses existed for people to legally remix each other's work without explicit permission. Disney, the MPAA, the RIAA, and others would have had greater ability to lengthen copyright terms, increase penalties for infringement, and so on.

Microsoft had a strong play for extending from the desktop to servers when Unix was fragmented. I wonder what might have happened if apache didn't exist to compete with Microsoft -- how much more influence Microsoft might have had over U.S. legislation.

He's done a lot more than just help write the GPL, but that alone contributed a lot.

Re: Richard Stallman Was Right All Along

#120

Post by shadowfiend »

crgt wrote: post #94
hammerdr wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have to understand that the system isn't that simple. Bills do not exist in a vacuum. You cannot view these things as independent and completely unrelated to everything else going around it. Yes, the President could veto the bill but then the next few months becomes about him veto-ing a military appropriations bill. He would then need to explain to the American public why the freedoms it eroded were unacceptable…

"He would then need to explain to the American public why the freedoms it eroded were unacceptable" Why is this a bad thing?

It's a good thing if the public understands. If they don't, you're hosed, because the bill passes anyway (there were 2/3s margins in both houses of Congress) and you get a Republican president, who is highly likely not to apply the already sad principles set forth in the signing statement.
Post reply on HN