Richard Stallman Was Right All Along • Hacker News Board

Re: Richard Stallman Was Right All Along

#191

Post by HalibetLector » Tue, Jan 03, 2012, 9:03 AM UTC

lukifer wrote: post #85

pyrhho wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I'll tell one thing which won't solve it: religious zealotry and advocations for everyone in the world to commit to FSF purity. Open software advocates should treat closed and controlled systems in the same fashion that techies implore content creators to treat piracy: an unstoppable force of nature that must be accepted and competed with, rather than feared and demonized. Also underlying both issues: the need for im…

I used to think this too, until I realized something I didn't thoroughly understand until I read the OP. The reason Stallman wants a "pure" system with no closed source code is because if there's even one proprietary bit of executable code, you can't guarantee your system isn't spying (or capable of spying) on you. Or tracking you or restricting how you use your data.

Seen through the argument I just made, when you say closed and controlled systems are an unstoppable force of nature and must be accepted, what you're really saying is digital spying/tracking/restriction is an unstoppable force of nature and must be accepted. It really is an all or nothing proposition at this point.

Re: Richard Stallman Was Right All Along

#192

Post by dalke » Tue, Jan 03, 2012, 10:59 AM UTC

ars wrote: post #155

dalke wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's an easy way: promote the use of a security cryptographic communications protocol. Fund development of a plugin for Windows. Advocate or even pass a law that banks, the IRS, and other organizations support it. Ignore requests that the code be published and/or available for other OSes. Ta-da! You've effectively discouraged use of free OSes. Okay, it's still possible to have a system without proprietary software.…

It would be reverse engineered pretty quickly. Reverse engineering code is pretty hard - but that sounds like a lot of motivation.

Did you read the link? "Unfortunately support for SEED alone is not enough to allow for secure transactions with Korean web services."

There's motivation, but still something missing.

Re: Richard Stallman Was Right All Along

#193

Post by cookiecaper » Tue, Jan 03, 2012, 11:47 AM UTC

Zigurd wrote: post #126

adrianbye wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

same for me, except around 2003. RMS is a difficult guy but he tends to be right.

RMS is difficult because he is consistent, because he is right about difficult topics, and because people have a natural tendency to be comforted by authoritarians. But the issues RMS writes and speaks about are fundamental to human rights, and to the continued ability to create and innovate and create value without getting prior permission.

I think RMS is difficult because he is not cooperative with people who don't share his views in their totality and because like many socially-awkward engineers, he has a penchant for making some really offensive and petty statements over what should simply be an ideological disagreement.

I agree with Stallman in many ways but I also have some important and major disagreements. I am sure that he would call me an enemy to free software, even though I regularly contribute to it, and that he would therefore consider my actions absolutely immoral and inexcusable. But I don't think it's immoral and inexcusable to charge money for things in a meaningful way (i.e., a way that actually generates money), at least not in the current context. I've read Stallman's arguments and don't find them particularly convincing.

I also don't believe that GNU is entitled to a prefix every time a complete system that uses the Linux kernel and GNU toolchain is mentioned.

So where does that leave me? As far as I can tell, Stallman would refuse to work with me, disavow any relationship with me, and consider me an immoral provocateur that harms free software no matter how much good I do for it in actuality (due to my disavowal of freedom 2 as an essential element in moral software).

That kind of hardcore, unyielding, exclusive ideology makes it really hard to get anywhere with people. You can't show someone the error of their ways if you refuse to associate or cooperate with them.

Re: Richard Stallman Was Right All Along

#194

Post by dmoney » Tue, Jan 03, 2012, 12:08 PM UTC

I can't find a news article saying that NDAA has been used to detain Occupy protesters, only that Occupy protesters have protested NDAA and some were arrested for failing to leave when ordered.

Re: Richard Stallman Was Right All Along

#195

Post by llambda » Tue, Jan 03, 2012, 12:17 PM UTC

loup-vaillant wrote: post #188

pg wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Predicting DRM phoning home in 1997 does not seem startlingly prescient. Nor locked down systems; those already existed. The only novel idea I see here is the point that copyright, which was originally a restriction on publishers, has now become a restriction on consumers. But that doesn't seem so dystopian. Everyone is a publisher now.

> But that doesn't seem so dystopian. Everyone is a publisher now. When you think it through, it does seem dystopian. Imagine that e-ink matures, and paper isn't that useful any more. That we no longer purchase dead-tree copies of our books, magazines, and so on. I think that can happen. I read right now a novel on my electronic reader, even though I have a dead-tree copy, because my reader is lighter and slimmer tha…

> Now, how do I lend you a book for which I have no dead-tree copy? I can't give you such a piece of dead-tree (and naturally lose it for myself).

Why can't you lend it to me on the good faith I'll return to it you when I'm done?

Edit: Aha, I misread your comment! I think because in the proceeding paragraph you mention the case of having a dead-tree book but preferring e-ink. Of course, if you don't have it you can't lend it (assuming DRM prevents you).

Re: Richard Stallman Was Right All Along

#196

Post by dextorious » Tue, Jan 03, 2012, 12:24 PM UTC

loup-vaillant wrote: post #188

pg wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Predicting DRM phoning home in 1997 does not seem startlingly prescient. Nor locked down systems; those already existed. The only novel idea I see here is the point that copyright, which was originally a restriction on publishers, has now become a restriction on consumers. But that doesn't seem so dystopian. Everyone is a publisher now.

> But that doesn't seem so dystopian. Everyone is a publisher now. When you think it through, it does seem dystopian. Imagine that e-ink matures, and paper isn't that useful any more. That we no longer purchase dead-tree copies of our books, magazines, and so on. I think that can happen. I read right now a novel on my electronic reader, even though I have a dead-tree copy, because my reader is lighter and slimmer tha…

""""Now, how do I lend you a book for which I have no dead-tree copy? I can't give you such a piece of dead-tree (and naturally lose it for myself). All I can do is make a copy and give it to you. And then I'm a publisher. And then what I'm doing is forbidden. And then I can't even lend you my book."""

So the "dystopia" is the artificial disability to lend books?

How about the counter-balance that millions of books are now available everywhere with an internet connection, instantly obtainable, with no real trees sacrificed and much cheaper than print editions (that one could get better, though). And you can even get 1-2 chapters for free to check if you want to buy the book (in Amazon kindle at least). Plus, everyone can become his own publisher for his own work (no copyright problem in this case) with easy worldwide distribution and no mediators.

So, yeah, you can't lend your book (almost, see below). But you can lend your ebook reader to others in the family. And how common is dead-tree book lending anyway? How about your friend buys a digital copy for himself (possibly after downloading the free sample chapters?).

"""(One could imagine laws/DRM that would erase the copy I own if I ever give another copy to someone else. However, I don't think the IP Lords would want even that. They'd say it harms their revenue.)"""

One doesn't have to imagine. iTunes store allows you to share your songs (haven't checked about books) with 5 other accounts.

And Kindle permits you to lend books to others for 14 days: http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=2...

Re: Richard Stallman Was Right All Along

#197

Post by dextorious » Tue, Jan 03, 2012, 12:35 PM UTC

rcthompson wrote: post #71

jonhendry wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the main flaw is that, no matter how popular GPL software becomes, it doesn't stop the government from saying "your machines need to run this closed-source software in order to be used or sold in this country".

That would be a difficult law to enforce without declaring martial law. If smartphones are any indication, it's difficult to design a device that cannot be convinced to run unauthorized code.

"""That would be a difficult law to enforce without declaring martial law."""

I seriously doubt that.

There are current laws in practice that would have needed martial law declared to be enforced (or even passed) a century of even a few decades ago.

And we're talking about "detain anyone for any period" and such laws, so in comparison the general public could care less about an "only run state-sponsored non Open Source software" law.

Re: Richard Stallman Was Right All Along

#198

Post by forcefsck » Tue, Jan 03, 2012, 12:43 PM UTC

jaekwon wrote: post #164

adrianbye wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

same for me, except around 2003. RMS is a difficult guy but he tends to be right.

Consider me in, since 2012-01-02.

Better late than never.

Re: Richard Stallman Was Right All Along

#199

Post by neilk » Tue, Jan 03, 2012, 12:46 PM UTC

Zigurd wrote: post #126

adrianbye wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

same for me, except around 2003. RMS is a difficult guy but he tends to be right.

RMS is difficult because he is consistent, because he is right about difficult topics, and because people have a natural tendency to be comforted by authoritarians. But the issues RMS writes and speaks about are fundamental to human rights, and to the continued ability to create and innovate and create value without getting prior permission.

No, there are lots of authors who do that and still have a following.

1. As an advocate, RMS scores own goals far too often.

RMS seems to go out of his way to present himself as an eccentric who has no comprehension of social norms.

I've also seen an entire roomful of people who were ready to eviscerate a new Microsoft technology (this was back when trusted computing was being introduced) suddenly flip around to sympathy with the Microsoft guy when Stallman weighed in.

2. Being RMS' friend is almost as bad as being his enemy.

He will condemn someone who has a slightly different position, or has made compromises, with equal vituperation as someone who is directly opposed.

I also know someone who got into trouble with his own repressive government due to RMS being unable to keep his mouth shut on issues he didn't understand. (Please don't ask for details.)

It's sad because, like the OP, I think RMS is fundamentally right about these issues.

Re: Richard Stallman Was Right All Along

#200

Post by jiggy2011 » Tue, Jan 03, 2012, 1:06 PM UTC

fl3tch wrote: post #160

jiggy2011 wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty much, Even with everyone running 100% FOSS the government could still pass a law that said "commits made by government agencies to any source code repositories must immediately be merged into all branches, compiling a binary without these modifications being intact is a violation of federal law" or something to that effect. It would make such things easier to spot, but spotting them in itself doesn't seem to b…

It wouldn't just be easier to spot, it would be immediately known, and thus no one would use it, which is why no government will (almost certainly) ever try. Plus, the code could just be hosted in another country (there are already tons of mirrors of the major FOSS projects). The security that open source provides is like installing a camera security system in your business. You don't actually expect to catch people…

That's true. Of course they could obfuscate to some extent but that might not be effective.

My point more is that if the government felt draconian enough they could easily hijack anything, if it's literally illegal to use a computer without government approved spyware installed then the best meaning license in the world can't help you.

They could also embed this in hardware device firmware instead.