RMS has never stolen my personal data and sold it to criminals, or deprecated my hardware by deliberately throttling its speed. The worst things you can say about him that he's a wierdo and a bit of a fanatic. But, he's a fanatic about personal and societal freedom, which is something everybody should be a fanatic about.
this post was submitted on 19 Jun 2023
118 points (94.7% liked)
Open Source
31359 readers
234 users here now
All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!
Useful Links
- Open Source Initiative
- Free Software Foundation
- Electronic Frontier Foundation
- Software Freedom Conservancy
- It's FOSS
- Android FOSS Apps Megathread
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to the open source ideology
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Unlike humanity's heroes like Elon Musk or Steve Jobs that man doesn't want to sell you anything. He is not popular or rich. He just wants you to care about freedom and to this day he still travels the world to educate people about Free Software. Who cares if he is a little weird? He dedicated his life to fighting for freedom and he will never sell out. He can't be bribed and he will never stop fighting for what's right.
I’m aware that Richard Stallman had some questionable or inadequate behaviours. I’m not defending those nor the man himself. I’m not defending blindly following that particular human (nor any particular human). I’m defending a philosophy, not the philosopher. I claim that his historical vision and his original ideas are still adequate today. Maybe more than ever.
This is really an important note. I've always maintained that while not every little one of Stallman's ideas are gold, his ideas on things he's got expertise on (especially open-source software) are pretty much on point—even if his ideas are a bit too idealistic and are seen as aspirational ideals rather than calls for action and the fact that a lot of them are painful for ordinary people to follow.
Yeah, I agree. Stallman's philosophy has some obvious blind spots (e.g. usability) but a number of his values continue to be proven correct as technology keeps advancing.
Yes! For example, his "no javascript please" stance, which is unfortunately nearly impossible to follow if you're to have any semblance of normalcy in browsing the internet, I take as an "ideal to aspire for". If anything, his warnings against Javascript reminds me to be ever mindful of the code I invite to run in my machine.
He wants people to stop using proprietary software and that includes proprietary javascript. That principle is not impossible to follow, since some people do follow it. I run proprietary javascript myself, but that is not a valid criticism of Richard Stallman or the Free Software movement. Freedom requires sacrifices. If you don't want to do something - that's up to you. But that doesn't change the fact that proprietary software is unethical and we should have higher standards as a society. His message doesn't become incorrect just because we aren't willing to give up some conveniences. If we all stopped using proprietary javascript, all web apps would have to become Free Software and the problem would be solved.
I am actually agreeing with you, it is not impossible.
However, given that Javascript is ubiquitous in the internet nowadays, giving it up would mean practically having to forego the "normal internet experience." Not many people are willing to go that far.
I am not saying he is wrong. I am saying that there are people like me who, despite not being prepared to go as far as he did, still recognize that he's right about such things.
For most people Free Software is probably a journey. You can improve your freedom gradually by slowly removing more and more proprietary software. The goal is to have as much freedom as possible. Javascript is at least sandboxed, so it won't be able to do you as much harm as a regular program. I can't stop using it either for now, but that's the only proprietary software I use. Most people aren't even willing to install a free operating system though.
For most people Free Software is probably a journey. You can improve your freedom gradually by slowly removing more and more proprietary software. The goal is to have as much freedom as possible.
Yeah. This is what I've been trying getting at when I said “are seen as aspirational ideals rather than calls for [immediate] action.”
It is not that what he said (especially about Free Software) is wrong, it's just that it's so far from some people's "normal" that for some, it might as well be a lifetime's journey to get there, if at all.
Is it a journey worth embarking on? Yes. Is it a journey that sometimes requires a lot from people? Also yes.
But I think it's worth it if we want to have a better future.
Free software is foundational to our society today. We should be much more aggressively protecting and encouraging it
Very timely article and a good reminder for us to 1) release our software under strong copyleft licenses and 2) do not invest our time in software that does not do .1
I wrote this eulogy to St Stallman already quite a few years ago, with the point that he may be wrong, but he is wrong in the right way, and that is a good thing. Still relevant:
We definitely need GPL-alike mechanism in the early age of AI, we most likely need that too in the distant future.
Really good piece but I think revolving the subject around a person does it a disservice. Surely he can't be the only one who thought of forbidding for profit use of foss. Honestly I'd be much more interested in reading this if the author wrote it around his own experience.
This has nothing to do with profit. It's about freedom and being able to control our computers. Richard Stallman created the Free Software movement. Without him there would be no GNU/Linux. He invented Copyleft.
Not this man pls, he is too radical. No, im not talking about free software, im talking about Richard Stallman the person. He ate dirt from his foot in public lecture, shout at the crowd, throw water bottle. I mean, he is not the one and only person who has an ideal, the way he acts is rude to say the least.
Let's get back to the free software, GPL and FSF, i think it will work wonders when we have difficult time securing basic human rights, and save us from losing more to large corps and power. However, the legal system has to function according to the GPL to properly constraints large corps. With that being said, GPL is a powerful communism license or mechanism to fight the large corps and power. It is 100% free for all, but it is not 100% free in any sense. If you develop a software base on GPL licensed software, closed source, you can be charged and legally ask you for the source code. It is also radical af if you think about it, except that it is nowhere near as relevant as what we have to fight for right now, which is free software.
Yeah there’s a reason everyone that’s worked in the field has a Stallman horror story. Love the ideas but Stallman has been a POS for a while.
Forgive me if I trivialize, but we should not mourn too much: the obvious solution is to pirate it all. Do not waste time and energy for reinventing the wheel in the form of writing open source software. These resources can be used better for Revolution. Instead of diving into exhausting dispute and overintellectual arguments of Stallman, just do what said Marx: seize the means of production. That is, fucking pirate it. It is simple as that.
There’s more to it than just having free software. The source code is important too because it lets people learn from it, improve it, and use it to write or improve their own projects. Free software is only half the equation.
Unless you mean pirate the source too, in which case yeah absolutely but easier said than done.
All right, that's an argument. Also, having fun from coding is also a valid argument. Though, from my experience, it is easier to start learning programming from some simple, isolated cases, as in thextbooks, than from real life programs, which can be very nasty and domain-dependent.
To start learning yes, but as I’ve gotten more experienced I find myself getting a lot more value out of real life examples. Cracking open a git repo and seeing how they did something can save me hours of reading documentation or at least give me a better context to grasp it. People learn differently from each other, and also themselves at various stages of their understanding.
One time, I spent whole day arguing with some anarchkiddies about that, and no one gave me a short, convincing argument like that. Their posts were emotional rather than seeking for truth. That's the difference between debate and dialectics.
I’m mostly just paraphrasing Stallman’s own arguments. They’re worth checking out. He’s not without his faults, but his reasoning in this area is very sound.
Pirating a program doesn't let you study what it does or change it. So you still don't control it. It solves nothing.
I got your point, but please look out of the programmer perspective. For a moment, look from the perspective of, for example, mechanical engineer: all she or he needs is a copy of AutoCad, Inventor or Catia. They know nothing about code, they do not need to modify the code, they are just use the software as any other machine. That's all they need. BTW, there is no open source competition to these programs. Free CAD, with all respect, is not so good. Not because it is made by bad programmers; simply because making such complicated software costs tons of people, time and effort, so only big enterprises can do that, and now they are sadly capitalistic.
Free/Libre Software solves this too. One of the 4 rights that it gives you is the right to distribute. So if AutoCad was Libre Software, any mechanical engineer could legally get a copy for free, from someone else. But this is only one problem in our society. We also want to be able to control our computers and in order to do that, we need to be able to control the software that runs on them. Otherwise our devices are not uder our control, but under control of corporations. Someone who developed a program might not have your best interest in mind. On the other hand spyware, DRM and other unethical practices are usually pointless to add to Libre Software, because anyone can remove them from a program and share this modified version with others. This benefits everyone, not just programmers.
Nobody says that Libre Software can't be commercial. Corporations can make Libre Software and sell it. Just because most Libre Software is released for free, doesn't mean people can't charge money for it.
Perhaps FreeCAD isn't as good as AutoCAD. That's a shame, but there are other areas where Free Software is just as good or better compared to proprietary alternatives. Blender is one example and it is available for free and funded entirely through donations from users and companies.
You are wrong at so many levels.
If you were to pirate something, not only it doesn't work all the time, doesn't scale to large corporations, the large corps control you.
The whole point of this is to gain full control, meaning legally, of what we think should be free.
it doesn’t work all the time
Neither FOSS. There are excellent programs in open source, but many are in some ways much inferior when compared to the cummercial. First example from head: many printers and other devices have drivers only for window$
doesn’t scale to large corporations
i consider pirating software for private use
the large corps control you
They are spying using regular software too
The whole point of this is to gain full control, meaning legally, of what we think should be free.
Why should we bother by unjust capitalist law? Today I shared with my students pirated books which would cost shitton of money in Poland. This should be free for education. But the law forbids it so fuck the law