Scheduled Maintenance: We are aware of an issue with Google, AOL, and Yahoo services as email providers which are blocking new registrations. We are trying to fix the issue and we have several internal and external support tickets in process to resolve the issue. Please see: viewtopic.php?t=158230

 

 

 

Is Richard Stallman the Enemy of Freedom?

Off-Topic discussions about science, technology, and non Debian specific topics.
Message
Author
User avatar
MeanDean
Posts: 3866
Joined: 2007-09-01 01:14

#196 Post by MeanDean »

AdrianTM wrote:... I find "non-free" pretty descriptive. It's also pretty arrogant to think that people don't know what they do and what "non-free" means, or in case they don't know they have to have their freedoms restrained, because they might do some wrong things.
How is it restraining anything? You seem to think that if we arent making cars that immediately and automatically do 90mph when you start the car we are restraining someone from driving 90mph. We arent btw...

Are you actually FOR giving someone the ability to do something without them even knowing what it means to perform that action, especially when a user may be trying to get away from that exact action to begin with.

You think every new user knows what the term 'free software' means and what 'non-free' means in that regard? That is a laughable assertion...proved false simply by perusing any linux forum....

User avatar
saulgoode
Posts: 1445
Joined: 2007-10-22 11:34
Been thanked: 4 times

#197 Post by saulgoode »

Telemachus wrote:So here is where I keep getting stuck. RMS's position still feels odd to me - not evil, not inconsistent even, but odd.
I think there are occasional inconsistencies between RMS's expressed ideals and the actions taken in pursuit of those ideals. However, he generally seems aware of those inconsistencies and addresses why the compromises were made. For example, the fact that the GNU Compiler Collection produces code that runs on proprietary operating systems tends to suggest that those systems are morally and ethically acceptable. Even in Richard Stallman's reputedly stark world of "us" and "them", there seem to still be a few gray regions where certain concessions are made (after all, he did spend ten years writing GNU on proprietary systems).

Regarding your analogy, I think it fails to recognize a difference in that the act of using Debian does not particularly benefit Debian in the way that a diamond purchase benefits a jeweler. Aside from increasing the user count from 18,000,000 to 18,000,001 Debian would hardly seem to benefit at all. However, if Mr Stallman were to advertise that he used Debian, there would be an associated value of goodwill that might be perceived as a detriment to other, "more Free", distributions -- even moreso should he recommend Debian.

There is a larger level of contribution involved with an endorsement of a distro than in just using it (especially to the extent that the usage is not known or advertised). Such an endorsement would likely be to the detriment of (in his view) "more-Free" distros.

Of course, this is mere speculation. You might wish to ask him yourself sometime. :)
Last edited by saulgoode on 2008-07-04 19:50, edited 1 time in total.
Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it. -- Brian Kernighan

User avatar
AdrianTM
Posts: 2499
Joined: 2004-09-19 01:08

#198 Post by AdrianTM »

MeanDean wrote:
Telemachus wrote:does not endorse nor recommend
due to new users that have no idea about the issues and may inadvertently end up using the very type of software they were trying to get away from.
In my opinion:
Freedom = letting people decide what to do.
Restrain freedom = restricting people options because they "don't know" or they might take the "wrong decision"

And knowing I'm going to be nitpicked to deaths... no, RMS doesn't restrain freedom, he doesn't have the power anyway, but that's what he wants Debian and BSD to do for him.

So basically you can explain how long you want what "non free" means and what are the evils associated with installing non-free software, but don't militate for eliminating the option to install such software if people wish to.
Ubuntu hate is a mental derangement.

User avatar
julian67
Posts: 4633
Joined: 2007-04-06 14:39
Location: Just hanging around
Been thanked: 7 times

#199 Post by julian67 »

Telemachus wrote:
julian67 wrote:I don't know. Would you? You're the only person who can answer that.
That was one of them there rhetorical questions. I would not do any of those things. I would be much more likely to boycott the store - and loudly. That's why I find RMS's position odd. I'm always surprised that he uses a Debian server, given what he believes.
julian67 wrote:Analogies help explain complex situations but this isn't complex.
First, at 13 pages and counting, you are surely wrong that this isn't complex. If this doesn't count as complex, I'm not sure what does. RMS's position itself is complex (ie, the opposite of simple or straightforward): he does not endorse nor recommend Debian (or *BSD) for perfectly good reasons, but he still feels comfortable using it personally. That combination is complex. Or at least it confuses me, and that's why I came up with the analogy.
The "complexity" comes from people misrepresenting other people's views and by doing so obfuscating the actual issues and the various positions of well known people and then pointless arguments ensue over events and statements which never existed.

Really it's not complicated:

RMS finds non-free software unacceptable and unethical. Free and non-free in these terms being defined here.

In his role as spokesman for GNU/FSF he never recommends non-free software and also never recommends distributions or OS's which suggest the use of non-free software. He feels that documentation of non-free and mention of it in places like the installer and package management do suggest this, and the dictionary definition of "suggest" confirms that his definition is perfectly acceptable. (Anyone can check a dictionary for themselves).


I've never heard or read RMS stating "don't use Debian". We've established that he uses it himself. He simply doesn't recommend it publicly because it suggests non-free and if he were to recommend it the result would be that some people might believe or assert (mistakenly or maliciously) that he was recommending the use of non-free software. This would be detrimental to the cause of promoting software freedom so he doesn't do it.


We might feel this strict standard has some practical limitations (or we might not) or we might have a lesser objection (or none at all) to the use of non-free software. We are free to agree or disagree and if we disagree it can be to a greater or lesser extent, but it's hard to say he's being dishonest or bad or absolutely mistaken or wrong.

User avatar
MeanDean
Posts: 3866
Joined: 2007-09-01 01:14

#200 Post by MeanDean »

AdrianTM wrote:Freedom = letting people decide what to do.
Restrain freedom = restricting people options because they "don't know" or they might take the "wrong decision"

And knowing I'm going to be nitpicked to deaths... no, RMS doesn't restrain freedom, he doesn't have the power anyway, but that's what he wants Debian and BSD to do for him.
How does debian, bsd, or even gnewsense stop people from deciding what to do? It isn't restraining freedom as much as ensuring it for those that DO want it and still allowing those that dont a way to do whatever they want.
AdrianTM wrote: So basically you can explain how long you want what "non free" means and what are the evils associated with installing non-free software, but don't militate for eliminating the option to install such software if people wish to.
....once again who is arguing for eliminating the option for those that wish to? I support your wish to install it? Can you support the right of a user to know what they are getting themselves into before they get instructed to use it? Until a user knows what it is I feel it is only proper to not instruct a user to use something, especially when that may be the exact reason they are moving to linux to begin with.

The problem(for me) is debian docs show how to use non-free yet do not even explain what it is.

User avatar
julian67
Posts: 4633
Joined: 2007-04-06 14:39
Location: Just hanging around
Been thanked: 7 times

#201 Post by julian67 »

AdrianTM wrote: So basically you can explain how long you want what "non free" means and what are the evils associated with installing non-free software, but don't militate for eliminating the option to install such software if people wish to.
Nobody is seeking to remove your ability to install non-free software.

As explained earlier this is impossibe on a free software OS because such an OS can always be modified in any way you prefer. This is one of the freedoms guaranteed by those you find so unpalatable :lol:

User avatar
AdrianTM
Posts: 2499
Joined: 2004-09-19 01:08

#202 Post by AdrianTM »

julian67 wrote:
AdrianTM wrote: So basically you can explain how long you want what "non free" means and what are the evils associated with installing non-free software, but don't militate for eliminating the option to install such software if people wish to.
Nobody is seeking to remove your ability to install non-free software.
I didn't claim such thing, RMS wants Debian and BSD to remove non-free software and thus making it harder for people to install non-free software.
Ubuntu hate is a mental derangement.

User avatar
AdrianTM
Posts: 2499
Joined: 2004-09-19 01:08

#203 Post by AdrianTM »

....once again who is arguing for eliminating the option for those that wish to
Isn't this exactly why RMS doesn't recommend either because people have the option to install non-free packages from Debian and BSD repos? What are we talking here about, I'm confused. So you say RMS is not arguing for eliminating non-free from Debian and BSD? If he's fine with non-free in Debian and BSD then I'm fine with his position too, sorry if I misunderstood.
Ubuntu hate is a mental derangement.

User avatar
MeanDean
Posts: 3866
Joined: 2007-09-01 01:14

#204 Post by MeanDean »

AdrianTM wrote: thus making it harder for people to install non-free software.
removing the ability is different than changing the method for that ability..

I believe everyone should be catered to, not just one particular group and that means that most will be inconvenienced one way or another and none will be fully 100% happy with the solution but it keeps from any one group being totally ignored.

I can never tell when we are talking about RMS, FSF/GNU, Debian, or personally....

I think it would be contradictory if RMS/FSF/GNU recommend distros that suggest non-free software as equally as free software.

User avatar
julian67
Posts: 4633
Joined: 2007-04-06 14:39
Location: Just hanging around
Been thanked: 7 times

#205 Post by julian67 »

It will always be, by definition, possible to install non-free software into a free software OS. Nobody is trying to stop you and any attempt to stop you would be futile.

There are already some things which Debian doesn't distribute even via non-free, because they may be free software but are patent encumbered in certain countries. Debian users typically obtain those items from debian-multimedia, a completely unofficial repository. It's neither easier nor more difficult to install those packages than packages from an official repo. If at some point Debian stopped hosting non-free packages they would surely be available elsewhere.

Primetime
Posts: 18
Joined: 2008-04-28 03:16

#206 Post by Primetime »

BioTube wrote:Now now. RMS just doesn't want newbies to be tricked into installing less-than-free software that actually works! God forbid we should avoid a free software clone because it's nonfunctional! Free but broken over lightly chained but working perfectly any day!
I faced a similar dilemna when I installed Linux for the first time. I was totally new to it. I started reading reviews about the different distros and I read one about openSUSE. Not very far into the review, it mentioned that there were "concerns" about licensing and patents. I didn't know what they were talking about, but it scared me away. It also mentioned a paid version of SUSE, so I assumed that the free version would be crippled or trialware. I then installed Ubuntu 6.06 and was underwhelmed by the features, yet overwhelmed by the learning curve. My printer didn't work, Real Player didn't work (because the codecs aren't "free"), my Windows drive wasn't showing up in Nautilus, and I had to manually copy plugins for Firefox to install them.

I then did some more research and discovered that openSUSE is much better than Ubuntu and that those "concerns" are just bullshit that has nothing to do with me or how I use the system. I then wondered why Ubuntu was so popular and realized that it was a combination of politics, deception, and an echo effect. Many of the people who install Ubuntu have been tricked into thinking that other distros cost money or that the companies that produce them are somehow evil. Even today when I read about openSUSE on DistroWatch.com, it mentions Novell's agreement with Microsoft when it compares it to other distributions, as if such a trivial matter should determine what operating system we use!

That brings me to my next point. One of the most disappointing things for me is how Stallman has made computing into a political affair. Programmers are serenly apolitical creatures. They have enough to worry about just getting their programs to work. The last thing they need is some jerk criticizing them for trying to make a living.
Last edited by Primetime on 2008-07-05 04:46, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
julian67
Posts: 4633
Joined: 2007-04-06 14:39
Location: Just hanging around
Been thanked: 7 times

#207 Post by julian67 »

Yup what this thread was crying out for was some Ubuntu bashing :roll:

Can you really speak on behalf of programmers? All of them...or just one?

Computing can't exist independently of politics. Look at how changes in the way audio and video are made and distributed have caused massive and radical new legislation such as the DMCA in the United States and similar laws in Europe. Consider how much money time and effort various governments spend to eavesdrop on/bug/intercept electronic communications. Check the news any week of the year and see how yet another government department has unwittingly divulged or lost the confidential personal/financial/medical data of thousands or even millions of its citizens. Find out about the notorious Windows Meta File vulnerability (deliberate back door) http://www.grc.com/sn/SN-022.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Me ... nerability and the implication that for several years information could be extracted at will from any connected Windows computer and that this was not a mistake.

People can be sued, prosecuted, fined or imprisoned (and they are) for modifying software and/or hardware for their own personal use, or for simply copying data from one place to another.

How is this not a political issue?

I'd also suggest you discover the history of free software. If RMS hadn't been upsetting people for the last 25 years or so there may well not be any. You certainly wouldn't be using a distro full of GNU utilities or the Linux kernel.

Primetime
Posts: 18
Joined: 2008-04-28 03:16

#208 Post by Primetime »

If there hadn't been an RMS, we'd be using BSD, which would be fine with me. :wink:

The solutions to such problems are political, legal, and economic — not technical. Their geneses are also political, legal, and economic. They were created by businessmen and politicians. One of them (the metafile vulnerability) probably wasn't purposefully created at all.

Programmers are apolitical. I come from a programming family and many of my friends are programmers. They don't talk about Bush all day, which makes them much easier to be around. Stallman doesn't program anymore, so he doesn't count. It's a shame he doesn't, though, because he's a crappy politician. As Torvalds said, "Talk is cheap. Show me the code."
Last edited by Primetime on 2008-07-04 21:48, edited 4 times in total.

User avatar
BioTube
Posts: 7520
Joined: 2007-06-01 04:34

#209 Post by BioTube »

Before Gates came along, the hacker culture was concerned with what it could do, not what was done with the software(these people would hack into the Pentagon and start plastering 'YOU'RE AN IDIOT' all over everybody's screen just to prove they could; they just might download nuclear secrets if they got extremely bored). Then came The Darkness and software became about exploiting your users for profit. Richard M Stalin, spewing fire and brimstone, often gets credited with the return of open software, but more peaceful programmers like Linus are the true cause of the coming Age of FOSS. Even without the GPL, Linux would have survived(though BSD might have overtaken it).
Image
Ludwig von Mises wrote:The elite should be supreme by virtue of persuasion, not by the assistance of firing squads.

User avatar
MeanDean
Posts: 3866
Joined: 2007-09-01 01:14

#210 Post by MeanDean »

Primetime wrote:If there hadn't been an RMS we'd be using BSD, which would be fine with me.
wouldn't be fine with me...
Primetime wrote: As Torvalds said, "Talk is cheap. Show me the code."
and then he goes on a fifty post tirade about anything but code...

User avatar
julian67
Posts: 4633
Joined: 2007-04-06 14:39
Location: Just hanging around
Been thanked: 7 times

#211 Post by julian67 »

If there hadn't been an RMS we'd be using BSD, which would be fine with me
except BSD may never have been available in non-proprietary form so your certainty is misplaced.
Even without the GPL, Linux would have survived(though BSD might have overtaken it).
except without GNU tools Linus Torvalds wouldn't have have even been able to build the Linux kernel or if he had built it using proprietary tools of the time he wouldn't have been to distribute it. He used the GNU C compiler by the way. Until Linux was released under the GPL it had no potential to be used commercially due to a clause in its original license forbidding commercial distribution.
Linus Torvalds wrote:making Linux GPL'd was definitely the best thing I ever did.


Free/open source BSD was undistributable and commercially untouchable until 1994 because of legal disputes.

User avatar
BioTube
Posts: 7520
Joined: 2007-06-01 04:34

#212 Post by BioTube »

So because BSD had a few legal issues it automatically would have never become an open source OS without GNU?
Image
Ludwig von Mises wrote:The elite should be supreme by virtue of persuasion, not by the assistance of firing squads.

User avatar
julian67
Posts: 4633
Joined: 2007-04-06 14:39
Location: Just hanging around
Been thanked: 7 times

#213 Post by julian67 »

BioTube wrote:So because BSD had a few legal issues it automatically would have never become an open source OS without GNU?

Firstly I didn't say anything of the kind so i'm not going to address your strawman question.

Secondly, why not go and do some reading and gain the benefit of an informed opinion of your own?

User avatar
BioTube
Posts: 7520
Joined: 2007-06-01 04:34

#214 Post by BioTube »

julian67 wrote:
BioTube wrote:So because BSD had a few legal issues it automatically would have never become an open source OS without GNU?

Firstly I didn't say anything of the kind so i'm not going to address your strawman question.
Reread your post. You did indeed say words to that effect.
If there hadn't been an RMS we'd be using BSD, which would be fine with me
except BSD may never have been available in non-proprietary form so your certainty is misplaced.
Image
Ludwig von Mises wrote:The elite should be supreme by virtue of persuasion, not by the assistance of firing squads.

User avatar
julian67
Posts: 4633
Joined: 2007-04-06 14:39
Location: Just hanging around
Been thanked: 7 times

#215 Post by julian67 »

BioTube wrote:
julian67 wrote:
BioTube wrote:So because BSD had a few legal issues it automatically would have never become an open source OS without GNU?

Firstly I didn't say anything of the kind so i'm not going to address your strawman question.
Reread your post. You did indeed say words to that effect.
If there hadn't been an RMS we'd be using BSD, which would be fine with me
except BSD may never have been available in non-proprietary form so your certainty is misplaced.
I said "may never have"

you said "it automatically would never have"

I also didn't asscoiate the necessity of the GNU tools with BSD's ability to develop into a free OS (though it's worth considering).

You did.

If you can't see the difference between "may never have" and "automatically would never have" then there's little point in me addressing you as I don't have the inclination to teach remedial English usage online to a stranger, or anyone in fact.

If you can understand the difference but post that kind of crap anyway I'm even less interested in addressing you.

Post Reply