Richard Stallman Was Right All Along • Hacker News Board

Re: Richard Stallman Was Right All Along

#201

Post by forcefsck » Tue, Jan 03, 2012, 1:15 PM UTC

chc wrote: post #86

burgerbrain wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stallman has been talking about and focusing about a hell of a lot more than just free software for a long time. Check out the short story, "The Right To Read" by Stallman. People used to think these sorts of warnings were crazy... now they are practically reality.

Stallman might, but the article doesn't mention that. The article basically says, "These two recent laws are scary, so support free software." If it sounded like I was criticizing Stallman, that's unfortunate, because that wasn't my intention. I was criticizing the article, because it invokes Stallman's name but fails to actually deliver any relevant wisdom from Stallman.

A lot of your life is supported by technology, small computers that run some software. If you don't have any control over those devices (e.g. like the iPhone), then a lot of your life is controlled by their creators. Some things you will not notice, like when your phone recommends you a restaurant. Some things might hurt you, like being monitored by a government (w/o the voluntary support from corporations controlling your device) in order to detain you if you speak against it.

Free software, as visioned by Stallman, is just a line of defense for your general freedom rights. And I disagree with you, the article is pretty clear on the matter.

Re: Richard Stallman Was Right All Along

#202

Post by lunarscape » Tue, Jan 03, 2012, 2:00 PM UTC

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.

The difference is that I have the source for Android, am running a kernel I compiled myself and have explicit control over all the processes running on it. The only flaw in it is that I have to rely on a closed binary blob for the radio as writing my own would be illegal (FCC etc). It can be treated as a closed circuit though. That's the compromise the openmoko projects are using. Also check out Replicant, Stallman's Android project.

Re: Richard Stallman Was Right All Along

#203

Post by biot » Tue, Jan 03, 2012, 2:03 PM UTC

marquis wrote: post #67

chc wrote: post #62

This article is just a complete non sequitur. The Stallman angle has nothing to do with any of the problems it cites. Free software wouldn't prevent Obama from signing an indefinite detention bill, it won't stop the government from forcing ISPs and DNS roots to do harmful things — the benefits of free software are completely different things.

One example: the free software movement should lead to a better DNS system where governments and corporations will have no control over how and where we access information online. I continue to support the EFF and groups like it in order to have funds directed into research on critical issues like this. Would you prefer a GPL DNS or proprietary?

  > Would you prefer a GPL DNS or proprietary?

False dichotomy. Apache, Firefox, Google Chrome, OpenSSH, and many others have all done quite well and are neither GPL nor proprietary.

Re: Richard Stallman Was Right All Along

#204

Post by jiggy2011 » Tue, Jan 03, 2012, 2:29 PM UTC

tankenmate wrote: post #183

jonhendry wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are many freedoms. I suspect Stallman would be happy if he achieved all his free software goals, even if he lost freedoms that most other people consider more important.

I think you completely misunderstand RMS then, I think you would find that he would argue that all freedoms are necessary and worth fighting for. In many speeches I have heard him give he has said that he could fight for other freedoms but the freedom he could do the best job of fighting for are software freedoms. I would suggest you read more of RMS's work and listen to more of his talks.

Yes, exactly.

Let's assume Stallman had qualified as a Medical Doctor rather than a Computer Programmer.

Perhaps he would be making the same argument about pharmaceutical patents?

Re: Richard Stallman Was Right All Along

#205

Post by billpatrianakos » Tue, Jan 03, 2012, 2:40 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…

Didnt the Kindle and Nook come with some way of sharing books with friends? I also seem to remember that the Xune let you share music too.

You have to admit that going digital introduces problems that aren't clear cut. If you were to reproduce a physical copy of a book and give it out en masse for either free or a fee you'd be called a bootlegger. But when that same book or movie or whatever is a digital copy then the difference between lending out a copy innocently and distribution which violates copyright gets blurred. Lending something out used to mean one copy gets passed between people. Now it means there's a copy for each person you want to share with.

I think we're just going through some growing pains. I really don't see how anyone can say any one side is right. Theyre just competing interests that we will hopefully find a happy middle ground for soon.

Re: Richard Stallman Was Right All Along

#206

Post by listic » Tue, Jan 03, 2012, 2:52 PM UTC

lunarscape wrote: post #202

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.

The difference is that I have the source for Android, am running a kernel I compiled myself and have explicit control over all the processes running on it. The only flaw in it is that I have to rely on a closed binary blob for the radio as writing my own would be illegal (FCC etc). It can be treated as a closed circuit though. That's the compromise the openmoko projects are using. Also check out Replicant, Stallman's…

Even if writing your own firmware would be illegal (would it be, really?), what prevents manufacturers from releasing the code for examination?

Also, radio firmware isn't the only one missing. I think drivers for video and other hardware are not released for no particular reason.

All this contributes to the fact that one cannot build firmware for any Android device from source. Accompanied by the fact that Google gets to do their mining on your data, Android looks just a little more open, compared to iOS. And it's a shame that there is no alternative in sight.

Re: Richard Stallman Was Right All Along

#207

Post by Tharkun » Tue, Jan 03, 2012, 2:52 PM UTC

Invoking Godwin's Law.

Saying Stallman "was right all along", just because he's not completely wrong all the time, is a bit like saying "hitler was right all along". Complete and utter bullcrap.

Stallman is a tit. Being an unwashed dick is his god given right, I won't dispute that. In spite of his undoubtedly good intentions, however, the man has such a poor image that he's done "his" FOSS cause more harm than good. He should go away. Or at least shut up.

Re: Richard Stallman Was Right All Along

#208

Post by billpatrianakos » Tue, Jan 03, 2012, 2:59 PM UTC

bad_user wrote: post #140

jonhendry wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but what has he done that has been directed towards US laws, regulations, and policies, to protect the right to read?

While I don't agree with the parent, as the BSD license and BSD-licensed software would have happened anyway, the GPL is the perfect example of what hackers can do against awful legislation. You see, the GPL takes the copyright system and turns it on its head. That's why it is named a copyleft license, an obvious pun. How does it do that? Well, copyright prevents distribution. The GPL rides this restriction and says…

You mentioned BSD and I'm wondering what's wrong with BSD? A lot of FOSS people are all about hating anything that isn't GPL but let's not forget that these licenses serve a purpose. GPL has its place but I personally distribute things I make under BSD all the time. I don't mind and in fact encourage people to take my source, close it up and make a bunch of money off it if they want or take it and give back better code. I like the idea that both of those very things happen under BSD. I understand that closed source can mean various nefarious (rhyming kind of on purpose) things go on but it isn't necessarily so.

Re: Richard Stallman Was Right All Along

#209

Post by zeruch » Tue, Jan 03, 2012, 3:45 PM UTC

Very few people actually dispute the crux of most of his arguments (at least those that have more than a surface awareness), but his dogmatism and often shrill OCD about slapping the GNU-prefix on things and poor social and personal hygiene have resulted in an image of a wildly paranoid crank which has made it easy to write him off casually by many of those who should be listening to him.

Re: Richard Stallman Was Right All Along

#210

Post by jkn » Tue, Jan 03, 2012, 3:46 PM UTC

samstave wrote: post #87

I think we are giving the government and Obama far too much credit for being stupid/naive/uncunning. Of course the NDAA funding auth is going to be passed. It must be - thus, they throw on insidious clauses like the detainment, and Obama is the lucky guy who just happens to be in the unfortunate position where he must sign it even though he opposed certain items. Here is an idea: require all laws to be single subject…

"Here is an idea: require all laws to be single subject, single focus."

The problem is that this goes against a parliament's ability to make deals. Each party has its own priorities, and is willing to compromise on other issues to advance these priorities.

Putting unrelated laws in one bill is essentially a way of formalizing a compromise so that congress can vote on it (with time a complexifying factor that can serve both sides depending on the situation). Do you really want to take this away?