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

101–110 of 236 posts

Re: Richard Stallman Was Right All Along

#101

Post by jonhendry »

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.

"If smartphones are any indication, it's difficult to design a device that cannot be convinced to run unauthorized code."

True, but you could require that the device have a little semi-autonomous widget attached that monitors the rest of the device, can't be controlled by software on the main device, and can't be removed or deactivated without seriously reducing functionality of the device.

The government would simply have to say "put this in your phones, and require devices on your network have it enabled, or you don't get FCC approval."

Re: Richard Stallman Was Right All Along

#102

Post by sadfasdf »

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.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html

That essay is what made me a firm supporter.

Re: Richard Stallman Was Right All Along

#103

Post by jonhendry »

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?

I don't really see how GPL enters into it, as the problems are with laws, policies and regulatory bodies.

The problems with the DNS system that I assume you're alluding to aren't due to the software or the software's license. It's the data the system runs on, and the people with the power to influence that data.

Re: Richard Stallman Was Right All Along

#104

Post by trotsky »

Rarely have I come across an article that promised such a ringing endorsement in its title only to find it peppered with bits of snarky back handed compliments.

So it doesn't come as much of a surprise that there wasn't much there even for the mostly uninitiated, still good(?) press is good press.

Surely, I thought, now that we've declared the imminent death of the Liberty and the Internet and its subsequent rescue by Saint Rick we must have hit bottom.

In the fine tradition of the showman the best had been saved for last. Never fear, he says, because Stallman's had our backs all along - it may have taken a long time but thankss to Richard we have Free and Open platforms like Android* that will protect us in the dark days ahead.

* resist temptation, remember: boot locks, carrier installs, 3rd party spyware, location tracking, cloud storage, baseband, drm everything, few security patches, etc.

Re: Richard Stallman Was Right All Along

#105

Post by jonhendry »

sadfasdf wrote: post #102
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.

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?

Re: Richard Stallman Was Right All Along

#106

Post by Stormbringer »

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…

Disclaimer: I'm no RMS fanboy by a long stretch of the imagination.

What you're saying is that they should throw their arms up in the air and say "welp, that's how the real world works in reality, so might as well give up and accept it".

But I think you're being unfair. The normal open advocates don't fear and demonize closed source. They may secretly pity it, they may secretly hate it, I don't know.

The RMS vision of open source, when you get right down to it, is that of two sandpits. In one sandpit, everyone shares their toys. In the other sandpit... who cares what they do?

If someone comes from the closed source world and wants to play in the open source sandpit, they have to play by the rules (sharing and openness).

I think RMS gets frustrated sometimes, because he doesn't want the other people playing in the open playpit giving their stuff away to the people in the selfish (no sharing) playpit. I think his thinking is that it would mean that there is less incentive for them "over there" to examine and repent of their selfish ways.

Sometimes the people in the no-sharing playpit have rich relatives that buy them nice toys for Christmas. But RMS views that as okay, if the open playpit turns out to have a need for one of those, he is confident that the open source people have the ability to make something even better, if they can be bothered to do so.

Re: Richard Stallman Was Right All Along

#107

Post by jasonlotito »

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…

> You have to understand that the system isn't that simple.

No, see, you are the one failing to understand. We understand what you are saying. We still disagree with it. At some point, someone has to stand up and say "No, this is wrong."

Someone has to call out Congress and the President for using the military's pay check to erode our rights. The President could have done this. He didn't. He elected to accept the measure, despite disagreeing with it.

Re: Richard Stallman Was Right All Along

#108

Post by dalke »

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.

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. Just much harder, and not worth the frustration to most people.

See the links from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEED as an example of that scenario in action in South Korea.

Re: Richard Stallman Was Right All Along

#109

Post by pingswept »

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?

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.

Re: Richard Stallman Was Right All Along

#110

Post by wtracy »

dpkendal wrote: post #58
muhfuhkuh wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The guy who also oversaw an economy that returned 401Ks to at least sane levels from -40% in 2007-8; the guy who actually said and then did get bin Laden; the guy who pushed for and signed a law that is as close to healthcare reform as anyone has gotten since Medicare was enacted almost 50 years ago; the guy who pulled us out of Iraq when the Republican candidate in 2008 said we should be there for 100 more years; th…

> the guy who actually said and then did get bin Laden I'm fairly sure that Obama himself didn't "get" bin Laden. The army worked to get information on his whereabouts, and the opportunity presented itself to the President. I'm fairly certain that, aside from discussions about tactical moves, all Obama did to "get" him was give the army the go-ahead for the operation. > the guy who pushed for and signed a law that is…

Obama deserves credit for giving the army the resources needed to catch bin Laden. Under Bush, most of those resources were diverted to Iraq.

At the moment, this is the only relevant article that Google is pulling up for me: http://thinkprogress.org/security/2011/05/03/163155/bush-did... (I know how sketchy a news source called "thinkprogress.org" looks--if you care enough to want a more reputable citation, you'll need to dig a little more on your own.)

Post reply on HN