I'm pretty sure that you can be a fanatic without being a suicide bomber, and that he didn't imply "RMS is like a suicide bomber".
I am prepared to acknowledge that he might well be right in his positions on freedom, but he comes across as a lunatic in most of his talks. I have a problem with this; if what he's saying is important, could we not advance a more charismatic, tactful and effective ambassador?
Or get rid of your expectations on what an ideal leader is?
Either way we already have a community of people sharing similar values of open source - I don't think we need a hierarchical leader/follower structure.
Reasonable people make progress but we always need fanatics. Fanatics keep the reasonable people in check and on track.
RMS is great at reminding the reasonable people of the importance of freedom in their software.
Go to linuxconf and notice all the reasonable people slowly transitioning away from Linux and toward MacOS.
Someone who will continually remind you that your current convenience has a future cost is useful.
Stallman is no fanatic. He favored a different business model from licensing proprietary closed-source software, and in many area his views are not only correct but essential.
Don't mistake consistency for fanaticism. In crypto software, for example, you can't be "a little proprietary" and be trusted. Sometimes there are no shades of grey.
But there's no "sometimes" for RMS. I have yet to see one piece of proprietary software - or one with license that is not approved by RMS - that he does not consider and call evil. If you say "certain kind of software needs to be open source or it can not be trusted" - it's a reasonable approach, if you can support it with good argument about which kind of software and why. If you say "any proprietary software is evil and any non-GPL one is a candidate to be evil" - that's way too far for me.
Once the hypothesis is assumed - that user access to their software source is a human right, equivalent to the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness - the logic itself is unassailable. Under that hypothesis, you are like someone saying that slavery is sometimes okay talking to an ardent abolitionist. You might have an economic argument for why someone deserves to be enslaved, but that doesn't sway the other person's sense of morality.
I, like you, happen to not believe that hypothesis, but I think you can see why your utilitarian logic may not be persuasive.
This is a weird assumption. I certainly can see why you would want access to the source code - it has many practical and theoretical benefits. However, the fact that you want something does not mean you have right to have it - and I see no reason to accept the premise that access to the source code of a program created by somebody else is comparable to my right to life. I can not see where this right comes from - do I have the right to see all the source code in the world? Or just for the code I would like to use? Or maybe just for the code that does something deemed useful by the government? Or maybe just the code that was already seen by certain amount of other people?
What about source code that contains private data - do I have the right to see that too? What if the code contains access key to your bank account and you never intended for anybody but you to see it - do I have the right to see that? What if you gave that code to your family (i.e. "distributed" it) - do I get the right to see it now?
I think the whole concept of declaring it to be "human right" is misguided, and, even more, harmful for actual human rights - as it gives one the impression that "human rights" is something like "if I want something really bad, I must have it". Human rights is a very different concept, and saying that demanding from Microsoft to reveal their trade secrets is like fighting slavery is, IMHO, a bit offensive to people that suffered and fought the actual slavery. We may say Microsoft keeping the source secret makes their product worse but it's not the same as slavery, not by a long shot.
These are tricky waters, so I'm not sure I can do the GNU viewpoint justice. You should read their FAQ and other essays for details. They talk about the four freedoms:
- The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
- The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
- The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
- The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
"do I have the right to see all the source code in the world?" No, you can't force someone to show you their software. Their list of freedoms is only triggered when you legally receive a copy of the software, or hardware which includes the software.
"What about source code that contains private data?" - Since no one is forced to give you the source code, then this doesn't apply. If they gave you the private data voluntarily, then it's not really that private, is it? If the "private data" is a required decryption key, then you must be provided that information. If the private data is a data file which is not part of the program, then it's not covered.
"What if you gave that code to your family" - Nope. It's triggered when you receive the software, not when someone else receives it.
"demanding from Microsoft to reveal their trade secrets is like fighting slavery is, IMHO, a bit offensive to people that suffered and fought the actual slavery" - Oh, I agree. I think I'm being overly blunt in describing GNU's view that way. I do it to get across the view that they view it as a moral obligation, which is different than the Open Source view that it's an economic advantage.
That's why "makes their product worse" doesn't cut it for GNU. They don't care if software is crappy or not, they only care that it's free ... and 'non-crappy' is only important when it advances the cause of freedom.
He called me an enemy of free software based on no other knowledge than that I will not use "GNU/Linux" when referring to a distribution which uses a Linux kernel. That is not a sign of someone with moderate views.
That is a net negative for free software, since it diminishes my desire to support free software, and instead stand behind the weaker banner of open source.
Hilariously written article. Here are some of the most wonderful snippets:
"this is possibly one of the biggest war that as been witnessed ... Paolo Bonzin, who has maintained the Free Software Foundation's GNU grep and GNU sed, has quit from his role." This is just the warmup. It's the beginning of the article, and has a few funny typos to get your juices flowing. My favorite part, is there's just something about the idea of "the biggest war witnessed" being kicked off by these unassuming command line regex utilities that gave me a little thrill.
Two paragraphs later, the article starts the real hit parade. "Bonzini put it bluntly saying, 'To put it somewhat bluntly, ...'" In my writing, I've sometimes found it difficult to properly introduce a quote. I never realized that I could simply repeat the quoted person verbatim. This is a brilliant technique.
Next paragraph, the brilliance continues: "it would be impossible to convince a diverse group such as the group of GNU maintainers to agree on coding standards for C. He wrote in his post, 'It is likely not possible to convince a diverse group such as the group of GNU maintainers to agree on coding standards for C++, for example...'"
The author was so enamored with this technique that he repeated it at the end of the very same quote. "'all Stallman had to offer on the topic was "We still prefer C to C++, because C++ is so ugly" (sic). As a result of this, the GNU coding standards have not seen any update in years and are entirely obsolete.” Bonzini blamed that it was Stallman's attitude because of which GNU coding standards have not been updated in years and were entirely obsolete."
I also love the last line of the article. "Well, if the trend continues, it can be a trouble for Stallman and his FSF ..." It rather puts me in mind of a young child, having spoken at unaccustomed length and exhausted their material, who shrugs and ends with, "well, they were in big trouble."
This article was a great Christmas present. Thanks, Hacker News!
Most likely English is not the author's first language. While they do not contribute much beyond the quotes, at least the article had a modicum of information and was not a complete waste of time. I'm afraid I can't say as much for your comment.
Seriously, anyone who claims mobile phones are the work of the devil, and should not be trusted, but will then use someone else's whenever its convenient, is a hypocrite not a visionary.
Sorry, my initial comment was about RMS and 'freedom in computing'. The article(s) are more about his ability to lead a team, and in that they may indeed be valid (and at first glance do seem to be). As to the cellular phones, sure they have been empowering to almost everyone in the world (and I esp. think of 3rd world countries), but I think we have yet to see the end game. Hypocrite, maybe, practical yes.
31 comments
[ 1.5 ms ] story [ 62.8 ms ] threadI am prepared to acknowledge that he might well be right in his positions on freedom, but he comes across as a lunatic in most of his talks. I have a problem with this; if what he's saying is important, could we not advance a more charismatic, tactful and effective ambassador?
Either way we already have a community of people sharing similar values of open source - I don't think we need a hierarchical leader/follower structure.
Don't mistake consistency for fanaticism. In crypto software, for example, you can't be "a little proprietary" and be trusted. Sometimes there are no shades of grey.
I, like you, happen to not believe that hypothesis, but I think you can see why your utilitarian logic may not be persuasive.
What about source code that contains private data - do I have the right to see that too? What if the code contains access key to your bank account and you never intended for anybody but you to see it - do I have the right to see that? What if you gave that code to your family (i.e. "distributed" it) - do I get the right to see it now?
I think the whole concept of declaring it to be "human right" is misguided, and, even more, harmful for actual human rights - as it gives one the impression that "human rights" is something like "if I want something really bad, I must have it". Human rights is a very different concept, and saying that demanding from Microsoft to reveal their trade secrets is like fighting slavery is, IMHO, a bit offensive to people that suffered and fought the actual slavery. We may say Microsoft keeping the source secret makes their product worse but it's not the same as slavery, not by a long shot.
- The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
- The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
- The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
- The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
"do I have the right to see all the source code in the world?" No, you can't force someone to show you their software. Their list of freedoms is only triggered when you legally receive a copy of the software, or hardware which includes the software.
"What about source code that contains private data?" - Since no one is forced to give you the source code, then this doesn't apply. If they gave you the private data voluntarily, then it's not really that private, is it? If the "private data" is a required decryption key, then you must be provided that information. If the private data is a data file which is not part of the program, then it's not covered.
"What if you gave that code to your family" - Nope. It's triggered when you receive the software, not when someone else receives it.
"demanding from Microsoft to reveal their trade secrets is like fighting slavery is, IMHO, a bit offensive to people that suffered and fought the actual slavery" - Oh, I agree. I think I'm being overly blunt in describing GNU's view that way. I do it to get across the view that they view it as a moral obligation, which is different than the Open Source view that it's an economic advantage.
That's why "makes their product worse" doesn't cut it for GNU. They don't care if software is crappy or not, they only care that it's free ... and 'non-crappy' is only important when it advances the cause of freedom.
That is a net negative for free software, since it diminishes my desire to support free software, and instead stand behind the weaker banner of open source.
"this is possibly one of the biggest war that as been witnessed ... Paolo Bonzin, who has maintained the Free Software Foundation's GNU grep and GNU sed, has quit from his role." This is just the warmup. It's the beginning of the article, and has a few funny typos to get your juices flowing. My favorite part, is there's just something about the idea of "the biggest war witnessed" being kicked off by these unassuming command line regex utilities that gave me a little thrill.
Two paragraphs later, the article starts the real hit parade. "Bonzini put it bluntly saying, 'To put it somewhat bluntly, ...'" In my writing, I've sometimes found it difficult to properly introduce a quote. I never realized that I could simply repeat the quoted person verbatim. This is a brilliant technique.
Next paragraph, the brilliance continues: "it would be impossible to convince a diverse group such as the group of GNU maintainers to agree on coding standards for C. He wrote in his post, 'It is likely not possible to convince a diverse group such as the group of GNU maintainers to agree on coding standards for C++, for example...'"
The author was so enamored with this technique that he repeated it at the end of the very same quote. "'all Stallman had to offer on the topic was "We still prefer C to C++, because C++ is so ugly" (sic). As a result of this, the GNU coding standards have not seen any update in years and are entirely obsolete.” Bonzini blamed that it was Stallman's attitude because of which GNU coding standards have not been updated in years and were entirely obsolete."
I also love the last line of the article. "Well, if the trend continues, it can be a trouble for Stallman and his FSF ..." It rather puts me in mind of a young child, having spoken at unaccustomed length and exhausted their material, who shrugs and ends with, "well, they were in big trouble."
This article was a great Christmas present. Thanks, Hacker News!