
Richard Stallman Was Right All Along - thomholwerda
http://www.osnews.com/story/25469/Richard_Stallman_Was_Right_All_Along
======
pg
This article doesn't seem to give any examples of specific predictions
Stallman made that have turned out to be correct. All the article seems to be
saying is that Stallman seemed paranoid, and present events seem to justify
paranoia.

(Incidentally, people always feel that.)

Can anyone give some examples of specific predictions Stallman made that
seemed surprising at the time, but that have come true? I'm not saying there
haven't been any, just that such a list would be more useful than this
article.

~~~
Joakal
"Right to read" [http://falkvinge.net/2011/06/03/stallmans-the-right-to-
read-...](http://falkvinge.net/2011/06/03/stallmans-the-right-to-read-becomes-
dreaded-insane-reality/) (Related:
[http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20069648-264/richard-
stall...](http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20069648-264/richard-stallman-
break-free-of-e-book-chains/) and
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Right_to_Read>)

Here's a lot more in the articles: <http://stallman.org/#politics>

Edit: IFSO: Richard Stallman: The Dangers of Software Patents; 2004-05-24
(transcript) <http://www.ifso.ie/documents/rms-2004-05-24.html>

Copyright and Globalization in the Age of Computer Networks - GNU Project -
Free Software Foundation (FSF) [https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/copyright-and-
globalization.h...](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/copyright-and-
globalization.html)

2nd edit: You are a Terrorist (Du bist Terrorist) German, English Subtitles -
YouTube <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdIA0jeW-24>

~~~
pg
Can you give me some examples of specific predictions he made that you feel
are most prescient?

~~~
jaekwon
_From the "Right to Read" 1997-02..._

"Dan had learned that each book had a copyright monitor that reported when and
where it was read, and by whom, to Central Licensing." -> _Streaming content,
DMCA tech_

"It was also possible to bypass the copyright monitors by installing a
modified system kernel." -> _Jailbreaking_

"But not only were they illegal, like debuggers—you could not install one if
you had one, without knowing your computer's root password. And neither the
FBI nor Microsoft Support would tell you that." -> _trusted computing_

"But ordinary users started using [free debugging tools] to bypass copyright
monitors, and eventually a judge ruled that this had become their principal
use in actual practice. This meant they were illegal; the debuggers'
developers were sent to prison." -> _DeCSS, Sony_

\----

 _From "The Dangers of Software Patents" 2004-05-24..._

"Copyright covers a work of authorship. A patent covers an idea. ...... But a
patent is an absolute monopoly on the use of an idea. Even if you could prove
that you had the idea yourself, that would be irrelevant: you're still not
allowed to use it." ->

 _Apple filed U.S. application Ser. No. 10/842,862 entitled “Multipoint
Touchscreen,” filed on 2004-05-04 and published as U.S. Published Application
No. 2006/0097991 on 2006-05-11._

\---

 _From "Copyright and Globalization" 2001-04-19..._ (Selected bits that were
interesting to me)

"In the ancient world, books were written by hand with a pen, …… you could
copy a part of a book, then write some new words, copy some more and write
some new words and on and on. This was called “writing a commentary” — that
was a common thing to do — and these commentaries were appreciated. …… Now
copyright was developed along with the use of the printing press and given the
technology of the printing press, it had the effect of an industrial
regulation. It didn't restrict what readers could do; it restricted what
publishers and authors could do. …… copyright law no longer acts as an
industrial regulation; it is now a Draconian restriction on a general public.
It used to be a restriction on publishers for the sake of authors. Now, for
practical purposes, it's a restriction on a public for the sake of publishers.
…… To enforce it requires surveillance — an intrusion — and harsh punishments,
and we are seeing these being enacted into law in the U.S. and other
countries." -> _NAFTA which is mentioned in the talk, SOPA, Protect IP, etc_

~~~
pg
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.

~~~
loup-vaillant
> _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 than my book.

Now, how do I lend you a book for which I have no dead-tree copy? I can't give
you such a piece of dead-tree (and naturally lose it for myself). All I can do
is make a copy and give it to you. And then I'm a publisher. And then what I'm
doing is forbidden. And then I can't even lend you my book.

 _(One could imagine laws/DRM that would erase the copy I own if I ever give
another copy to someone else. However, I don't think the IP Lords would want
even that. They'd say it harms their revenue.)_

But that's not dystopian enough. True dystopia is when the means of enforcing
it kick in: the only know way right now is a "total surveillance" regime,
where free software itself is forbidden.

~~~
dextorious
""""Now, how do I lend you a book for which I have no dead-tree copy? I can't
give you such a piece of dead-tree (and naturally lose it for myself). All I
can do is make a copy and give it to you. And then I'm a publisher. And then
what I'm doing is forbidden. And then I can't even lend you my book."""

So the "dystopia" is the artificial disability to lend books?

How about the counter-balance that millions of books are now available
everywhere with an internet connection, instantly obtainable, with no real
trees sacrificed and much cheaper than print editions (that one could get
better, though). And you can even get 1-2 chapters for free to check if you
want to buy the book (in Amazon kindle at least). Plus, everyone can become
his own publisher for his own work (no copyright problem in this case) with
easy worldwide distribution and no mediators.

So, yeah, you can't lend your book (almost, see below). But you can lend your
ebook reader to others in the family. And how common is dead-tree book lending
anyway? How about your friend buys a digital copy for himself (possibly after
downloading the free sample chapters?).

"""(One could imagine laws/DRM that would erase the copy I own if I ever give
another copy to someone else. However, I don't think the IP Lords would want
even that. They'd say it harms their revenue.)"""

One doesn't have to imagine. iTunes store allows you to share your songs
(haven't checked about books) with 5 other accounts.

And Kindle permits you to lend books to others for 14 days:
[http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=2...](http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=200549320)

~~~
loup-vaillant
> _So the "dystopia" is the artificial disability to lend books?_

No, that's not bad enough. But it sure leads to a dystopia. Quoting myself: "
_True dystopia is when the means of enforcing [copyright] kick in: the only
know way right now is a "total surveillance" regime, where free software
itself is forbidden._ "

By the way, it still applies even when Big IP do permit you to share with a
few friends.

------
spodek
"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.

~~~
pyrhho
Since you recognised this issue so long ago, I'm sure you have some
recommendations regarding how we can solve it?

~~~
lukifer
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 improved business models to sustain
free software and open content. People like to get paid, and t-shirts +
donations doesn't always cut it.

~~~
Stormbringer
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.

~~~
lukifer
I am, admittedly, attacking a straw man, though in the case of RMS and a few
others, it's not far off from reality.

> In one sandpit, everyone shares their toys. In the other sandpit... who
> cares what they do?

That's the attitude I mean. The fact is, a lot of people care: engineers,
customers, and investors are making really interesting things happen in that
sandpit. For FOSS advocates to avoid the development happening there is a
hindrance to progress, not in aid of it. Maybe if RMS let himself own an
Android or iPhone (perhaps with SIM removed), he would understand why these
new platforms are a big deal, and be better equipped to create truly open
equivalents, instead of insisting on living in his purist tech world of the
70's (wget-ing web pages? _really_?).

Closed source isn't evil. It's selfish. And we expect a certain level of
selfishness from both individuals and companies. I fully support shifting our
values in tech and elsewhere to a greater esteem for community and the
commons. But calls for all software to be open and free is unrealistic: many
people can't or won't create value without a selfish incentive. Time spent
advocating against closed platforms is better spent making open platforms
better.

~~~
Stormbringer
I think that RMS is quite happy to cut all ties with the closed source world
in order to build a brave new one that is an idealised programmers paradise. I
look at the GPL and it seems to me the clear intent there is to have this
separation, this "software apartheid" if you will.

You and I on the other hand, might look at it and say "okay, but how do these
brave new programmers eat? Who pays their rent?" Back in the day, RMS used to
just do some hand waving and point out that if (sorry: "once") the economic
benefits of open source are realised that companies will do this because they
realise it is in their best interests.

I'd be delighted to be wrong, but it seems that only a tiny minority of Open
Source developers are actually hired by enlightened companies to work on their
Open Source projects full time. Google being an obvious big contributor in
that regard. But here's the thing with RMS, he is such an extremist that even
Google's contribution isn't enough. He doesn't want a measly couple of
buillion dollars worth of commitment, he wants it all, the heart mind body and
soul must be dedicated to the cause or you are unworthy.

The sandbox metaphor breaks down when we look at one of the things that RMS
objects to about Google, that they use Open Source, and they provide
'free(ish)' software services in return, but because those web/software
services sit behind the "big-iron" curtain Google are never obligated to
release their changes and improvements. Hence the GPL becomes ineffective in
that scenario.

The problem of course is the risk of ghetto-isation of the open source
developers. You and I might be reluctant to leap in boots and all because of
petty economic concerns and so keep at least one foot in the closed source
world. This lets us see lots of exciting things happening there. But don't
forget that there is lots of stuff happening in the open source world. Closed
source may look more exciting now, but RMS is taking the long position that in
the end his legions of trusty hackers working together will create something
much better than the corporations all doing their own small secret things.

And something genuinely spectacular happened last year. Last year was
(finally) the long predicted, long awaited year of Linux hitting the
mainstream. Except of course it wasn't Linux on the desktop, but Linux on
mobile (Android).

Unfortunately, as open as it might be, it seems to me that Android is deeply
flawed as far as alignment with the GNU philosophy of openness, what with the
carriers doing all kinds of horrible things (some behind the scenes, some
brazenly out in public). I hear stories of Microsoft making more money off
Android than the do off Windows mobile (or whatever it is called this week),
simply by threatening legal action, and patents of dubious parentage. Not to
mention some of the openness being more open than others (e.g. Google
releasing the code to some partners but not others, and not the public)

------
jasonallen
Agreed - Stallman was right all along. What's working against Stallman though
is that his doomsday predictions are being delivered in piecemeal fashion.
Each slight erosion doesn't seem too bad by itself. Only in retrospect does
the magnitude of the problem reveal itself. Governments and corporations have
evolved processes to change laws in such effective manners as to evade most
human observation.

tldr; No one tells you the plane's not coming - they just tell you it's 20m
late, perpetually...

~~~
jonhendry
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".

~~~
rcthompson
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.

~~~
dalke
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.

~~~
ars
It would be reverse engineered pretty quickly.

Reverse engineering code is pretty hard - but that sounds like a lot of
motivation.

~~~
dalke
Did you read the link? "Unfortunately support for SEED alone is not enough to
allow for secure transactions with Korean web services."

There's motivation, but still something missing.

~~~
ars
What's missing? The wiki page doesn't say.

~~~
dalke
Strange! I go to "<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEED>, I search for "not
enough" and it's on the end of the first paragraph.

------
chc
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.

~~~
marquis
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?

~~~
msbarnett
The current DNS system is based almost entirely on GPL software...

~~~
throwaway64
free software, yes. GPL software, no. BIND is ISC liscensed...

------
kevinalexbrown
One problem with software you don't have control over is that _anything_ is
subpoenable. We don't have to wait for the government to impose their own
tracking mechanisms, because as soon as they get probable cause, that's it
(which includes missing a finger, having >7 days food supply at home, if you
believe Rand Paul anyway). Or just look up Google's government transparency
report[1]. When you don't have control over your data, it's just a
warrant/polite request away from the government.

Not all government access to private data is bad. After all, it's needed to
stop things like child prostitution/pornography rings, and yeah, terrorism.
But what I liked so much about this article was putting the slippery slope
into perspective. It's easy enough to quote the transparency report, "The
number of user data requests we received increased by 29% compared to the
previous reporting period." and go "well - just 29%" but that's _one year_.
I'll make the surprising bet it doesn't go down. Compare to three decades ago,
and a lot of what's happening now seemed draconian then.

[1] <http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/>

~~~
Joakal
There's no control over what is bought for customers, or if they're nice, they
allow opening it up but there's an automatic gag order. Thanks to anti-
circumvention laws among others. Part of the powerful copyright lobby.

------
samstave
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, single focus. If it is
a funding measure, it cannot expand powers/modify any existing laws other than
to either increase or decrease funding. If it is a law, such as one that is
focused on the detainment of [whomever] then that should be a singular law
stating under which circumstances this law shall be applied.

This is the number one source of corruption in the government, the ability to
abuse the structure of the legal system.

By doing this one thing, you will cripple lobbying, create transparency and
create accountability (you'll be able to understand where each rep is on each
issue)

~~~
e2e8
You make sound like the administration did not want the powers granted by the
bill. This is incorrect. The administration initially opposed the language
because they believed it _restricted_ powers they already had to detain
indefinatly.

"the authorities granted by the Authorization for Use of Military Force
Against Terrorists, including the detention authority, are essential to our
ability to protect the American people... Because the authorities codified in
this section already exist, the Administration does not believe codification
is necessary and poses some risk."

~~~
samstave
No, I am saying the administration is expertly farking with public perception.

I am aware of their want to ensure their power was protected.

I am saying that most people are being played to think that obmama expressed
"concerns" but was painted into a corner where he needed to sign this. The
fact is they ADDED / ENSURED the clauses they wanted were in there, then
played the perception of the signage to make it look like they were the VICTIM
rather than the perp.

There is a very very good reason obama is a constitutional lawyer as potus.

Hint: it is not to ensure your freedoms.

------
strmpnk
Richard Stallman may have been right about the issue but that doesn't mean is
approach to solving these issues nor his philosophy are in the same bucket.

I'd say he's always been right to a point since what he said years ago was
true then and happens to be true now at a larger scale. It's not necessarily
prophetic, just keenly observant. Likewise we have more free software options
today than we did in the past.

My personal __opinion __is that it'd be wrong to get rid of either end.
Eliminating freedom from software ecosystems would be disastrous. Likewise, I
don't think free solves all of our software problems either (one could
possibly abstain from many things but that's avoiding not solving the
problem). SOPA needs to be stopped but lets not assume that non-free software
needs to be limited because of this. Live and let live (and never let your
guard down).

------
Tycho
I just don't see the relationship between government overstepping the mark...
and buying a proprietary product form a company you respect, because you want
to use the product and are willing to sacrifice the desirable but non-
essential quality of unfettered access to its innards.

...OK, actually I do see the connection. The suggestion is probably that if
the technology is not totally open, you don't know how much power you're
giving away (the manufacturers could be cooperating secretly with the
authorities). But if you really feel like this, all you need to do is refrain
from using your iClosedDevice for any type of work or communication that you
wouldn't trust in the hands of the manufacturers/authorities.

... And OK, I see the point that we need to support the alternative methods or
else their won't be any when we need them. It's just the either/or sentiment
that bugs me.

~~~
Zirro
... And OK, then you saw the point of the article, after all.

EDIT: Lesson to self. Don't post while you have a cold, and pounding headache
as a result. It'll get you downvoted.

~~~
Tycho
But the point of the article seems slightly different from Stallman's stance.
The article said 'support Linux, even if you use Windows' - whereas IIRC the
FSF says 'never use Windows' or something to that affect.

~~~
Zirro
That is true, and I agree with it. If that's what you meant, I apologize. My
post came more out of annoyance that you kept adding more info with the "And
OK"-label, which partially changed your initial stance.

------
sunkencity
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.

~~~
lunarscape
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.

~~~
listic
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.

~~~
lunarscape
"Even if writing your own firmware would be illegal (would it be, really?) "

For a radio module I would say so. It's one of the reasons cited by the
openmoko successors from not doing it. Radio devices have to be tested and
certified that the device stays within FCC or EC standards. Changing the
firmware changes behaviour.

"what prevents manufacturers from releasing the code for examination?"

Patents, security... I'm sure they have their reasons.

"Accompanied by the fact that Google gets to do their mining on your data,
Android looks just a little more open, compared to iOS."

Not if you use your own ROM or root your phone and stop all Google
applicatons.

------
morpher
In Sec. 1021 (the one about indefinite detention power), it clearly states:

(e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing
law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful
resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or
arrested in the United States.

So, how does this give the president the supposed power to detain US citizens?
(The oft quoted 'slippery' line about not requiring detention Americans is
from the NEXT section, which is specifically about requiring detentions in
some cases.

~~~
morpher
Ok. I see now how this can be abused. Is it saying:

(A) United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the US, or (any other
persons who are caputred or arrested in the US)

OR

B) (United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the US, or any other
persons) who are caputred or arrested in the US

If one reads this as B, then once a citizen accused of being a terrorist steps
foot outside of the country, they are screwed.

~~~
jonhendry
"If one reads this as B, then once a citizen accused of being a terrorist
steps foot outside of the country, they are screwed."

Seems like they already are.

------
SaintSal
"His only computer is a Lemote Yeelong netbook, because it's the only computer
which uses only Free software - no firmware blobs, no proprietary BIOS; it's
all Free." Interesting that it's made in China. I'm trying to reconcile the
implications of that...
[http://www.lemote.com/en/products/Notebook/2010/0310/112.htm...](http://www.lemote.com/en/products/Notebook/2010/0310/112.html)

~~~
jonhendry
And how does he _know_ there are no "firmware blobs"?

~~~
glimcat
Because he can close his eyes and wish, I suppose. It's a netbook, there are
microcontrollers. The microcontrollers have firmware.

Besides which, I somehow doubt that all the relevant microcircuitry is open
source.

~~~
ars
He's OK with that kind of firmware - as long as the code can not be updated
the circuit is considered a black box.

He doesn't ask for open source hardware either, so firmware directly tied to
hardware is considered hardware.

~~~
glimcat
Seems a wee bit arbitrary. And convenient.

~~~
ars
He explain more here: <http://www.fsf.org/news/freebios.html>

Or better, here: <http://blog.reddit.com/2010/07/rms-ama.html> search for
"microwave".

------
wycats
It's worth noting that Obama, upon signing, issued a signing statement that
said that he was against the indefinite detention provision, and importantly,
that he would not indefinitely hold Americans without trial:

"Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the
indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I
believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and
values as a Nation. My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner
that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution,
the laws of war, and all other applicable law."

~~~
OstiaAntica
Obama the candidate opposed the use of signing statements.

[http://technorati.com/politics/article/signing-statements-
re...](http://technorati.com/politics/article/signing-statements-redux/)

~~~
aamar
_It's important to note that Obama makes clear in both his campaign assertion
and his official memo that he does not consider signing statements to be
problematic in and of themselves. Rather, he argues, their use should be
limited in scope and reach, clearly stating that President Bush went
overboard._

From Politifact's extensive discussion: [http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-
meter/promises/obameter/pr...](http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-
meter/promises/obameter/promise/516/no-signing-statements-nullify-instruction-
congress/)

Politifact consulted 5 experts, 4 of whom (at the time of consultation) felt
he has kept his promise. Politifact itself has currently rated the promise as
"compromise", meaning partial fulfillment.

~~~
protomyth
Politifact isn't exactly the beacon of truth it purports to be either:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politifact> \- the SNL business was particularly
odd

~~~
aamar
I agree that they've made errors, but they seem deserving of their fairly good
reputation (not as high as, say, NYT).

~~~
protomyth
I would imagine the same people and groups that have problems with Politifact
also have problems with NYT much like the other side has problems with the WSJ
and Fox News.

------
Jun8
You have to counter the forces against freedom with an _array_ of approaches,
free software being only one of these. Without having a clear understanding of
the economic and political understanding of the driving forces behind the
ratcheting up of state control, resistance will be pretty much futile, I fear.

------
Shorel
Of course he is right when he writes about fundamental issues. He's very smart
and knows the implications of laws and licenses.

However, he allows no room for dissent, no transition path, no concessions for
the real world. His followers are the same.

For this reason, I will never use the GPL for any of my projects (I prefer
wxWidgets and MIT licenses).

------
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.

------
jimmeh2
I've often thought that Stallman was too prickly as spokesman or
organisational leader, but I've never regarded him as being too extreme from a
free software, ideological perspective. His thinking along those lines has
always been meticulously careful and he generally sought out and found
extremely competent legal advise. His basic mode of argumentation is to point
out various legal exploits and note that there was no good reason to assume
that government and industry won't abuse them if given the right set of
circumstances.

It's a mystery why every ten years we have to have this discussion about
whether we've entered a new age of ethical business and responsible
government, where we somehow think that human nature and human organisations
have changed permanently (through technological innovation!) in some
egalitarian way.

------
Mordor
People latch onto the word 'terrorist' and think it doesn't apply to them, but
we are all 'terrorists' in one way or other because our thoughts and actions
do not completely submit to the state. Indeed this is never possible.

------
antoinevg
Excerpted from Volume 43 of How To Boil Frogs by P. Latanna:

    
    
      *ribbit*
    
      To be sure the water is warmer this year but 
      surely it is only 9.943 degrees hotter and not 
      10 degrees like the author claims.
    
      *ribbit*

------
zeruch
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.

------
ypcx
From the "Yeeloong Notebook" page:

"If you prefer warm interpersonal dialogs in solving problems, you can dial
our hotline. Technical personnel will provide help in the _first time._ "

Now I can understand Mr. Stallman!

On a more serious note, the only question is: How much worse do things have to
get, in order to start getting better?

Besides, the Yeeloong thing coming from China, I wouldn't be so sure it
doesn't contain a bit of tracking circuitry.

------
trotsky
_This is why you should support Android (not Google, but Android), even if you
prefer the iPhone. [...] There's going to be a point where being Free/open is
no longer a fun perk, but a necessity._

Stallman on Android: [https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/android-and-users-
freedom.htm...](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/android-and-users-freedom.html)

------
gonzo
This whole "Stallman doesn't carry a phone" thing is BS.

I spent a couple days with him in Hawaii. He most definitely has a cell phone.

~~~
bennyboy
And don't talk about his laptop, how nowadays you can still use that kind of
laptop?!

------
Cieplak
To what extent can utilities like DTrace make proprietary software free? I
know this is kind of a broad question, but can we detect hidden functionality
in proprietary software without fully reverse-engineering it?

------
aquanext
Sorry, but the part about picking Android over iPhone is just bullshit.
Android is totally open source and it still came preloaded with Carrier IQ on
it. I agree with the sentiment, but let's not be stupid, okay?

------
dmoney
I can't find a news article saying that NDAA has been used to detain Occupy
protesters, only that Occupy protesters have protested NDAA and some were
arrested for failing to leave when ordered.

------
tessellated
'Richard Stallman Was Right All Along' Is this really news anymore?

------
eddyweb
I love what Bob Dylan said in a song "...instead of learning to live, they are
learning to die". That really summed it up for me

------
Tharkun
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.

------
BiosElement
And I predict everyone on this planet will die at some point in time!

... ...

I guess that means I was right all along!

------
hnsmurf
Just because you're paranoid/doesn't mean they're not after you.

------
desireco42
I can't like this enough

------
Craiggybear
Of course he was right all along. As we will all soon discover to our enormous
cost.

------
paulhauggis
Take note who signed it.

~~~
dpkendal
A Nobel Peace Prize winner? The man who promised to close down Guantanamo Bay
and has still yet to manage to do so? Whose election campaign promised
"Change" yet whose only significant move in that way so far, in office for 3
years, is the repeal of DADT? The man who I (along with so many liberals) want
desperately to believe in, but who just makes it too hard for us?

Yes, that man.

~~~
muhfuhkuh
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; the guy who has kept or compromised on
over 200 campaign and administration promises?

You can talk of "change" like it's some concrete label you can bend to
whatever cares you want, but remember you voted for a President, not a King.

~~~
dpkendal
> 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 as close to healthcare
> reform as anyone has gotten since Medicare was enacted almost 50 years ago

Which was itself mostly a sleazy compromise like DADT, barely worth
celebrating.

\---

Perhaps I was too hard on Obama. But his administration has been a failure on
the whole, especially compared to the FDR-like, sweeping political moves
promised during his election.

~~~
shadowfiend
FDR-like, sweeping political moves require not only an FDR-like President, but
a corresponding Congress and popular support. For reference, FDR won 57% of
the popular vote, while Obama got 52%. And when things didn't immediately
improve after the 1932 election, the Democrats maintained their majority in
1934.

Compare the dominance here:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1932prescountymap.PNG> to this:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2008prescountymap.PNG>

In short, the circumstances of the times did not allow for the kind of
complete shift that the Great Depression triggered.

