
Dear Dr. Stallman: An Open Letter - AlexeyMK
http://alexeymk.com/dear-dr-stallman-an-open-letter
======
emilsedgh
A few points i would like to remind everyone who criticizes rms.

1) rms is a radical guy. You cannot change that. He fights for what he thinks
is right. He is not the kind of person you can ask to censor himself.

If he thinks u.s goverment is to blame for 9/11, no matter how saying it in a
lecture seems childish, he will say it.

If you invite rms for a lecture, he is coming with his radicalism. That is to
be expected. You cannot invite rms and expect steve jobs.

2) rms is a practical guy. stop acting like he's a mad man who knows nothing.
He started GNU, wrote emacs, glibc, gcc and probably others. He created the
concept of free software and wrote a license as good as GPL to defend it.

He also managed to gather a community around this very crazy idea of free
software.

3) rms doesnt want people only to use free software. he wants people to value
their freedom, and as a result of that, use free software.

It doesnt really matter if whole world uses android instead of ios. The point
is, these days, most people involved in open source community, do not even
care about free software and the freedom it offers.

Most people are interested in technological advancements or affects of an open
source project on market. None of them are concerns for rms.

And, what i said above is just what i interpreted from his actions and are not
facts.

~~~
patrickaljord
> If he thinks u.s goverment is to blame for 9/11, no matter how saying it in
> a lecture seems childish, he will say it.

By the way he doesn't believe that. Last time I read about his opinion on the
subject he said that proofs were lacking on both sides (truther and non-
truther) but that it was probably the work of religious fundamentalists
(either christians or muslims).

~~~
singular
To be honest, if he believes that 'proofs are lacking on both sides' then I've
just lost quite a significant amount of respect for the man.

If the 'truthers' are correct then many hundreds, if not thousands, of people
decided to conspire to murder thousands of innocent civilians and, somehow,
managed to prevent any leaking of this whatsoever.

On this basis alone, the idea that 9/11 was a conspiracy is insane, before we
get to the fact that, as with all other conspiracy theories, there is just no
evidence whatsoever (though the 'truthers' require an unattainable standard of
proof from reasonable people, despite requiring none for their own beliefs)
then the idea that there is 'no proof' on either side is equally unhinged.

If you can't think clearly on something so clear and obvious then it really
draws into question your reliability on any subject, especially if you are
'preaching' on the subject.

I'm sorry, you just have to draw the line when you're talking about the murder
of thousands of innocent people. Seriously.

~~~
Joeri
OK, hundreds would be impossible and silly, but why would it take hundreds?
Suppose Cheney decided by himself to let the attacks happen, could he have,
without anyone catching on? If not he alone, who else would be needed? No more
than five surely.

Discounting a conspiracy as impossible is just as silly as arguing a
conspiracy of hundreds. Improbable, yes, impossible, no.

~~~
scott_s
_Suppose Cheney decided by himself to let the attacks happen, could he have,
without anyone catching on? If not he alone, who else would be needed? No more
than five surely._

No, because the people at the top are not the ones who do the work. They set
policy, and sometimes directly tell people what to do - but, more often, they
tell people who then tell other people what to do. If a conspiracy is going to
involve the top of the chain - and it should be pointed out that the VP is
technically not in the chain of command - then it's going to involved dozens,
if not hundreds of others if the conspiracy is actually going to do something
effective. And in that case, there will be enough written down that eventually
it will out. See, for example, the Iran-Contra affair.

An excellent account of both what the critical points for intervention were,
and what happened on the day is "The Ground Truth":
[http://www.amazon.com/Ground-Truth-Untold-America-
Attack/dp/...](http://www.amazon.com/Ground-Truth-Untold-America-
Attack/dp/B0043RT9A8/) The title has unfortunate "truther" connotations, but
it comes from a term the aviation industry uses to establish what happened
after a crash. They use first-hand material and evidence to establish the
"ground truth" of the crash, and from there try to extract lessons. The author
does exactly that, using primary sources exclusively - such as recorded
conversations between air controllers - to determine the sequence of events.

------
danieldk
Years back, I used to be an FSF member. Not that I liked the GPL much (in
fact, I mostly use the Apache License), but they raised important issues, and
had a track record of investing into fine software (GNU) that I benefitted
from a lot.

However, their campaigns were getting so off-target, that much of my sympathy
dwindled, and I ended my membership. Childish 'anti' advertising, such as
'BadVista' and DDoSing Apple's genius bars (gee, that's will convince anyone
who was visiting an Apple Store) only made the whole free software movement
look bad, childish, and unsocial. To this day, they seem to put their energy
into almost hilarious campaigns (Windows 7 sins? Seriously?).

This open letter is on the mark, their current course only marginalizes the
FSF and part of the FLOSS community. Whatever happened to relying on your own
strengths, rather than caricaturizing the competition?

~~~
vog
I'm a happy fellow of the FSFE (<http://fsfe.org/>), the European pendant to
the FSF. Sometimes we also discuss FSF campaigns, and usually agree that those
would almost certainly be counter-productive here in Europe, especially things
like the "Windows 7 sins".

However, we always thought: Well, the USA have a different culture, so maybe
this kind of campaign is needed there, and probably our style of campaign
would not work there.

(With "our style" I especially mean: not to exaggerate, and to prefer positive
campaigns over negative campaigns.)

It is interesting to see that our objections seem to be also valid within the
USA, too. Maybe it's time for some people to join the FSF and to encourage
them to learn from their European branch.

~~~
StavrosK
It's interesting how advertising cultures are different. In Greece, for
example, it is unthinkable for an ad to acknowledge the competition,
especially in a negative light.

It was a rather big shock for me when I saw a US ad for a Ford car (for
example) saying "our fuel consumption is X lower than the Prius".

This would never happen in Greece. At most, they would say "our fuel
consumption is X lower than the nearest competitor".

~~~
varaon
(Canadian here, but the ads are similar and we get lots of US channels.)

>At most, they would say "our fuel consumption is X lower than the nearest
competitor".

This is what usually happens. It's only when a competitor is so well-regarded
that people wouldn't even consider the company running the ad that they
mention names.

For example, fuel econonmy and the Prius and almost inseparable in people's
minds thanks to good marketing, to the point that someone shopping for an
efficient car would probably not even consider Ford unless you challenged
their assumptions with a surprising fact (that the Ford had better MPG than
the Prius).

It's like the "Droid does" ads (<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e52TSXwj774>)
- the iPhone was so dominant that they basically had to say, "You think that
Apple/Toyota is the best in this field? Well guess what, we're better!"

~~~
fluidcruft
In the prius example, my hunch is that when doing tests the the generic terms
(things like "nearest competitor") failed to elicit comparisions with the
prius. Prius already has a not-a-regular-car cache so my guess is they had to
use prius as the generic term. Or they were specifically targeting people that
were already seriously considering the prius. Prius may be on the way to
becoming another kleenex.

------
michaelpinto
If Stallman wasn't a crazy hippy he wouldn't have been into this cause years
before even the first dot.com boom. It's unfair for someone to insist that a
visionary go corporate all these years later because you feel uncomfortable.
If you want to be the next generation spokesman than become that, but don't
waste time trying to make a zebra shed his stripes.

~~~
AlexeyMK
Thanks for making that point. I want to make perfectly clear that I have a
tremendous amount of respect for RMS and everything that he's done. By no
means would I recommend that he compromise his ideology or 'go corporate.'

All I'm saying is: almost everybody at his talk (already a self-selecting
group) was put off by the tone and extremist nature of his delivery. His
message got lost, and that sucks - it's an important message.

~~~
patrickaljord
But his eccentricity and radicalism are what made the fsf and gnu possible in
the first place. Anyone with his skills in the 70s turned into a millionaire
by the end of the 80's. Instead he decided to lock himself up and write emacs,
gcc, glibc etc and give them away for free living on donations and minimum
wage freelancing.

The thing is that you can't call him on his eccentricity and radicalism when
this is exactly what got him there in the first place. Sure, he's not business
friendly but we already have very powerful entities such as google advocating
foss in a business friendly way. I still find his speeches entertaining and
things like swindle and digital restrictions don't offend me, they're actually
refreshing compared to the usual politically correct speeches.

~~~
bostonpete
I dunno. Couldn't you use that same sort of logic to argue against criticizing
any great/commendable person? We shouldn't criticize them because those
character traits are part of the reason they accomplished these other things
over here.

Then again, maybe the criticism they've received all along has helped to drive
them to those successes, so we actually _should_ be criticizing them...

------
mbateman
Just a quick thought from skimming this thread: It seems like there are two
issues, radicalism and eccentricity.

Saying that the government may have caused 9/11 is eccentric. It's crazy and
"radical" in an uninteresting way, and most intelligent people will ignore it.

But the idea that one shouldn't use Google docs if one values freedom is
radical. I think RMS is completely and totally wrong, but the radicalism or
apparent impracticality of the idea is not what I object to.

The cheesy campaigns and slogans have elements of both. They are radical ideas
presented in an eccentric way. I think the 7 sins stuff, Swindle, etc., are
stupid and childish and really have no upside.

But contrary to what the OP seems to suggest, while many people are turned off
by radicalism, radicals are influential way out of proportion to what one
would be led to expect by making a quick survey of people's negative reactions
to them.

It can be hard to separate what's radical and what's merely eccentric.
Especially if you're the one trying to figure out how to present radical
ideas.

~~~
Sukotto
I believe that radicals are the most influential when they contrast against
(and serve as a warning about ignoring) the moderates.

Imho, the problem the FSF has is that they don't have a MLK to Stallman's
Malcolm X.

Eben Moglen? maybe? Is he active anymore?

~~~
yxhuvud
But on the other hand, if we instead choose licences and the GPL as Malcolm X,
then there definitely is a MLK in BSD.

Do the BSD and BSDish licences have any front people the same way GPL do in
Stallman?

~~~
msutherl
"Open Source" (Eric Raymond et al) and Apache Foundation.

------
andywood
I dislike the idea that every single leader in the world must only conduct
themselves according to Dale Carnegie, as it were. There is an over-abundance
of people doing just that, and judging from this post and many of the
comments, a lot of people seem to want others to conform to that sort of
uniform "persuasive" behavior. I'm not saying it isn't effective, but surely
not everybody needs to do that. Isn't there room in this big world for a few
genuine _personalities?_

~~~
blhack
Of course there is, but I think in some ways it hurts RMS, and it hurts the
image of the FSF.

A good friend of mine (a fellow hacker, actually a much much better hacker
than me) and I were talking about Richard Stallman the other day. The guy
deserves an _enormous_ amount of credit for his contributions to humanity.

Think about what happened as a result of GCC. Think of how many things were
enabled because of that.

Right now I'm sitting in one of the design studios over at ASU borrowing some
bandwidth and hanging out with one of my friends while she works on an
architectural model. Something that I never realized until I spent some time
talking with her was how _unbelievably lucky_ we are as nerds.

I was talking to her about what an architect hopes for after college.

Spend tons of $$ on school->hope you get a good internship->Hope you get hired
somewhere good->hope that you get the privilege of working on something
cool->maybe get a good job doing something fun.

You _have_ to spend other people's money, lots of it, in order to do cool
things in architecture.

With open source software (and I understand that GCC isn't _all_ of open
source software, but it's important) this isn't true at all.

My passion is for building websites. My webservers run linux, I use python as
a scripting language, I use apache as a webserver, I use mysql as a database.
If I get _really_ big, maybe I'll use nginx as a proxy cache.

The only limiting factor in how much stuff I can build on my computer is how
fast I can input new information into my brain. I'm constrained by my ability
to learn and _that is pretty much it_.

This is _huge_ , and this is something that is pretty unique to computers.

And think about the ways in which this freedom to create has revolutionized
the way that humans communicate with one another. Think about how equalizing
this is across the economic spectrum.

(I'm sorry, I went kindof off topic there...)

You've got all of these absolutely wonderful things happening in OSS. If
somebody wanted to give Dr. Stallman a Nobel Prize for contributions to
humanity, I wouldn't bat an eye.

But to "the outside world" a lot of these things are hidden behind a
personality that is incredibly off-putting, and that's a little bit tragic. I
wish Stallman was a tiny bit more "normal" just because I want more people
exposed to the things that he has done.

~~~
gaius
_I'm constrained by my ability to learn and that is pretty much it._

Well, I think it is more subtle than that. You are relying on certain
externalities - for example, you can't build a chip fab without spending an
enormous amount of money, and you need all that power so you can work in
Python and not ASM, you can't lay ubiquitous bandwidth without spending an
enormous amount of money, etc.

What you are doing is equivalent to your friend creating whatever she can
imagine in MicroStation (or whatever CAD architects use these days). It's just
that she seems to be more aware of the commercial aspects of actually making
it happen than you are.

~~~
blhack
You're right, but these externalities are accessibly cheap.

Last month, my website had ~150,000 visitors. People who I know and look up to
in the tech community tweeted about it (it was for an article I wrote).

I was able to design something, implement it (the software the runs the site
[on top of the OSS stack]), then release it to the world and watch people use
it.

It wasn't just a demo, it was a real-life, functioning product.

I pay $20/mo for hosting on linode. $20/mo gets me the ability to compete with
multi-billion dollar media publishers, and multi-billion-dollar software
companies (faecbook, twitter, etc [ _obviously_ my $20/mo doesn't scale. The
point is that I'm creating the same thing they are, just smaller).

I got "noticed" by a whole bunch of people who used my product.

This is _not_ the case with architecture. You could make an _really_ cool
model, or design in CAD, and nobody outside of your social circle would likely
see it.

I just paid $48 for a year of hosting on prgmr because I wanted to give some
friends of mine a sandbox to play in while I teach them python.

Imagine an architecture teacher giving their student a plot of land, as well
as a crew of builders, and a yard full of raw materials.

 _That's_ where OSS software is right now, and that is amazing.

------
elwin
I hear this opinion a lot, and I think it slightly misses the point. The open-
source world already has plenty of socially conventional advocates promoting
their products. If the FSF became an ordinary open-source software promoter,
it wouldn't have nearly as much influence as, say, the Ubuntu marketing team.

But there aren't many organizations trying to derive software principles from
objective logic instead of subjective cost-benefit analysis, who insist that
freedom and controlling your own computing is not just another feature but a
vital issue. RMS may not convert many Windows users, but he does come up with
valuable insights. If no one else is going to be a vocal, uncompromising
advocate for software users, I can cringe through Windows 7 Sins and jokes
about letting presidents drown.

------
rjbond3rd
This man is arguably the greatest hacker of all time. He's hacking the
culture, he's been incredibly successful.

It's shocking and irresponsible that people are commenting on "what rms says"
based only on hearsay, speculation and mis-quotes. At least take the time to
Google before condemning the man for things he never said.

~~~
AlexeyMK
The link to the video of the lecture was in the first sentence of the letter.
Apologies if this was unclear.

~~~
rjbond3rd
Apologies to you but I was referring to commenters on this thread, not your
post. Specifically, the 9/11 stuff. I should have replied to those directly,
but was disgusted.

My apologies once again because it has nothing to do with you.

------
omouse
Also, Stallman has been taking baby steps for a very very long time. He didn't
start with a completely free software machine at all. He used a proprietary
compiler at first, a proprietary editor, etc. in order to build everything up.

In today's world, it _is_ possible to do all of your work using free software.
It may not be Google Docs, but LibreOffice is pretty awesome and you can just
use Empathy or Pidgin IM to talk to people over an XMPP network.

At some point you have to pry yourself away from proprietary software and the
sooner you do it, the less likely you are to cave in and use _more_
proprietary software.

Stallman has been repeating the same ideas for years. It's hard to sound
persuasive or charismatic when you're _not_ trying to be a leader and when
you've been saying the same damned thing over and over and having to adapt it
to the realities of today (which could have been avoided if only more people
had listened in the first place...)

------
mark_l_watson
I don't think that Stallman should tone down his message. Sure, he can be
rough, but so what. (I've experienced this in email with him when he asked
about re-releasing some of my early Lisp books under the FSF doc license, but
that is OK.) The world needs people with strong contrarian opinions and even
if I don't always agree I value what they say.

Way off topic, but: I can imagine a future world where there is an underground
using free software, private but linked ad-hoc networks, etc. The victories of
the super rich over the rest of us in the last decade actually have me looking
at fiction like the world in Gibson's 'Johnny Mnemonic' as a real possibility
for the future.

~~~
abrahamsen
RMS wrote a short story on the premise

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

------
msutherl
What bother's me about Dr. Stallman is that he is concerned with particular
freedoms, such as the freedom to tinker with software, and brands this as
_the_ freedom. This is ideology. For me the most important freedom is the
freedom to get my work done with the best available tools. Often the best
available tools are not "free" software, especially if you do anything other
than web or systems programming.

I actually prefer to see him marginalize his views – it helps intelligent
people who are not interested in buying into other people's ideology realize
that he is an egomaniacal cult leader without needing to waste time
considering the soundness of his ideas.

I prefer the "open source" guys.

~~~
emilsedgh
you don't give a damn about freedom, you just want a good tool. Its not really
that hard to understand the difference.

~~~
msutherl
What is "freedom"?

------
lell
Proponents of the FSF desire the hegemony of free software with the same
uncompromising fervor as revolutionaries in russia desired communism in 1917.
And the analogy does not end there. In many ways, free software is a
communists dream.

Marx hoped that technology would make human labour redundant through
mechanisation of production, allowing humans to spend all their time doing r&d
(or r&r) --- he hoped that stuff like food would become free to create. With
software, it's already possible to make this a reality, as programs can be
replicated without cost. All other things being equal, this should lead to
great benefits to society, a prospect that has attracted RMS and others.

That being said, it is as useless to ask RMS to compromise as it would be to
ask those revolutionaries to in russia, 1917.

Furthermore, asking them to take baby steps is condescending, and they will
ignore this advice. The reason is that their motivation differs from the
majority of the hackernews readership. Sure, if they took baby steps and
focused on PR and focused their agenda, free software might become more
mainstream, and many entrepreneurs and small companies would benefit. But they
don't want entrepreneurs and small companies to benefit, esp. if it means
making these compromises.

Essentially, this is why I find articles like this condescending. The point of
FSF is to improve society by advocating universal adoption of free software.
Entrepreneurs indirectly benefit from these endeavors. Entrepreneurs then
complain that the FSF could be more effective if they compromised their
platforms. But this is sort of disingenuous because it's essentially the
entrepreneurs telling the FSF to redirect effort that would benefit all of
society to effort that would benefit the entrepreneurs. Granted, the former
efforts are harder than the latter, but it is no one's place to tell the FSF
how to direct their charity and advocacy, especially not someone who stands to
gain from the reallocation that they themselves suggest.

~~~
patrickaljord
> Proponents of the FSF desire the hegemony of free software with the same
> uncompromising fervor as revolutionaries in russia desired communism in
> 1917.

Sorry but this is not true. Stallman already said many times that he doesn't
think proprietary software should be banned. In fact the first version of the
emacs license used to oblige people to redistribute their modifications even
when there were no re-distribution. RMS realized that was fascist and decided
to only ask for source in case of redistribution (as in the gpl later).

------
leoc
Eben Moglen <http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/> is a more winning spokesman for
the FSF these days. I hope he'll forgive me for mentioning that there's plenty
of him on YouTube <http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=eben+moglen> :)

~~~
hubb
eben's a wonderful speaker, but i believe he's resigned from actively working
for the FSF? i could be wrong

~~~
mvalle
I believe he now works for the Software Freedom Law Center, which is sort of
affiliated with the FSF.

------
sliverstorm
On the flipside, if Stallman was less crazy I wouldn't have my second-favorite
comic strip of all time:

<http://xkcd.com/225/>

~~~
patrickaljord
Relevant [http://blog.xkcd.com/2007/04/19/life-imitates-xkcd-part-
ii-r...](http://blog.xkcd.com/2007/04/19/life-imitates-xkcd-part-ii-richard-
stallman/)

------
jrockway
I don't think this guy gets it. Clearly, he has drawn the line at "proprietary
software is fine, as long as it's useful to me". To RMS, though, that's not
where the line is: he simply refuses to use software he can't tweak or audit.
That's not like calling Obama Hitler or saying global warming is a scientific
fraud. It's just an ideology, like not driving a car or only eating foods that
don't come from animals. Nothing wrong with that, so why all the hate?

This article is sillier than calling the kindle "swindle".

~~~
estel
If the spokesperson for the Vegetarian Society was trying to persuade others
to become vegetarian by branding all farmers "murderers" and engaging in
ridiculous rhetoric, I think other vegetarians might be concerned that their
message wasn't being conveyed appropriately and was alienating them from the
mainstream, thereby resulting in fewer vegetarians.

~~~
rdouble
I can't tell if you are being facetious, but the main argument for
vegetarianism is that "meat is murder."

~~~
rosser
For many of the vegetarians I've known, that's a secondary argument, the
primary being a healthier lifestyle.

~~~
abrahamsen
The analogy works fine. We have the politically motivated FSF on the "meat is
murder" side, and on the other hand the Open Source movements belief that open
source is simply a more practical way to develop software on the "healthier
lifestyle" side.

I wouldn't expect PETA to stop with their off-putting campaigns ("Your Mommy
Kill Animals"), it is what they genuinely believe, and for them keeping silent
and advocating "a healthier lifestyle" would be so far from their viewpoint
that it would practically be a lie, even if it might win them more friends and
influence.

Same with RMS. His views are radical, and toning his messages to make them
more palatable down would be dishonest to who he is. Let someone else play the
moderate and practical.

Of course, moderate and practical people don't dedicate their life to a
message, be it "a healthier lifestyle" or "a better way to develop software".
The Open Source spokespeople like Michael Tiemann or Tim O'Reilly) tend to get
distracted by having a life to live.

~~~
leftcoaster
And let's not forget that RMS' views create the space that moderates inhabit.
In other words, if there were no RMS, the moderates would be the extremists
and we'd all be poorer for it.

~~~
zecho
The difference though, is that usually the moderates have the pulpit and the
radicals are ever marginalized. That hasn't happened to a great degree here.
Stallman is still the front man for the movement.

------
danenania
Ignoring the particulars of the issue, I think it's sad that non-mainstream
views on 9/11 automatically makes someone a valid target for ad hominem
attacks, even in educated and intellectual circles. This form of social
exclusion is essentially nationalistic and a dangerous trend.

While conspiracy fetishism is unfortunate, it's good to have people
questioning the official line, and it isn't as if all the facts around 9/11
are clear cut--yes, there is much unsupported speculation that can be thrown
out immediately, but simply positing government involvement on some level is
not a priori outlandish.

I don't think we should expect anything different from Stallman, or any
radical thinker. Controversy is part of the job.

~~~
cooldeal
The issue is not that he holds such views, the issue is that he brings it up
in the context of free software in order to push the line "the gummint is out
of get us", which makes it a little unpalatable to many.

~~~
danenania
I agree it's not effective rhetorically. Digging into any controversial issue
is rhetorically risky for a public figure. What is worrying to me is the
disproportionate sensitivity Americans have to this particular bit of
controversy. All he said is he believes the US government was involved in
9/11. He didn't say how or in what capacity. Yet based on many of the
responses, you'd think he said that Lizard Man Bush flew the planes himself by
remote control. The author complains that Stallman is marginalizing himself,
yet if he and others are willing to attempt to marginalize him based on
unpopular (not crazy) political opinions, who's really to blame?

------
Typhon
Can somebody tell me when exactly did Stallman say that someone who used
proprietary software was a hater of freedom ? In the last interview I read, he
seemed able to understand that almost nobody would go as far as him on the
side of software freedom.

[http://www.networkworld.com/news/2011/031411-richard-
stallma...](http://www.networkworld.com/news/2011/031411-richard-
stallman.html?page=2)

~~~
MostAwesomeDude
I have no citation, but he did say things along those lines when I saw him at
Portland State not even a month ago.

------
gsf
I wonder how many 24-year-old CS students have given this same advice to
Stallman in the last 25 years. Not that Alexey shouldn't voice his thoughts,
but it's well-trod ground.

------
3dFlatLander
When I first started to become computer savvy, Stallman had already moved into
the activist stage, and further away from programming. I had always heard that
he was a great programmer. But, I've never actually seen any code he's
written. The earliest software versions I can find on gnu.org's FTP are from
1994--I'm guessing most of the projects had multiple contributors by this
time.

Anyone happen to know where some pure Stallman code can be found?

~~~
sipefree
apt-get source emacs

------
AlexeyMK
I definitely hadn't expected as much feedback and discussion as the post got;
thanks, everybody! In case you're curious, I got an email back from RMS:
<http://alexeymk.com/dear-dr-stallman-the-aftermath>

~~~
bxr
Thats it? That response is a bit of a letdown (but in a way exactly what I'd
expect from rms). It kind of goes without saying that you're going to be
skeptical of things said by someone who disagrees with your philosophy, but I
wouldn't fault him for using that as a preface to a discussion, except that's
all he says. It make it seem like he just dismissed your message without
giving it any thought. Maybe that kind of hypocrisy is needed in a advocate
like himself, implore people to heed your message, ignore listening to
anything that might change your attitudes.

------
omouse
Saying "Big Brother" is simply telling the truth. When the US government and
other governments feel it's okay to illegally wiretap people and the TSA
subjects you to full body searches and cellphones make you easy to locate and
the US government uses drones to kill people in other and the NSA wants
backdoors into encryption schemes and ways to break them, I think it's safe to
call them Big Brother.

------
gnufs
Relevantly, FSF's new executive director is asking for feedback, and
specifically criticism: [http://lists.fsf.org/archive/html/info-
member/2011-04/msg000...](http://lists.fsf.org/archive/html/info-
member/2011-04/msg00001.html)

------
smellyboy
Whilst I'm against negative campaigning, rms has been and still is the
consciousness of free software. We would be in a very bad place if not for
him. yeah sometimes he's a dick, but then we all are.

------
cgray4
I really don't think the signs that are used to illustrate this article are
comparable. The Kindle/Swindle sign isn't making up a new name for the Kindle.
It is saying that this thing in the sign is a swindle. You shouldn't buy it
because it makes false promises. If a person made up a sign with a bottle of
Coke and put "Tastes Great" beneath it, that person wouldn't be calling Coke
"Tastes Great".

Sure, it's negative advertising, but that doesn't put it on the level of
Lyndon Larouche advertising. It might be on the level of the people who called
Microsoft M$ on Slashdot 15 years ago, but I don't really think it is. I
didn't see the talk, so I don't know if he called it a swindle during the talk
but if he did, then I would put the remark in the latter category.

I'm even less sure what the objection to the other sign is. Is it the word
"sins"? They want you to go to their website to see the things that they don't
like about Windows 7. Mainly, I would guess, in the way that it restricts your
freedom. What is a short word that is less incendiary that means things-I-
don't-like-about-a-thing-that-restricts-my-freedom?

Finally, "baby steps"? In this day and age? I've used almost exclusively free
software for over ten years. It's really not that hard. I prefer it. So start
using free software or don't. I don't care. But don't pretend it's a big
hassle that someone told you that you should.

(To be clear, I'm not a total apologist for RMS. He has said some distasteful
things about women and from what I hear his hygiene isn't the greatest
either.)

~~~
dget
In his talk, he referred to the Kindle nearly exclusively as the "Amazon
Swindle," only clarifying that he was talking about the Kindle at the end, for
what its' worth.

~~~
cgray4
That's unfortunate. In the past, I've had more respect for the FSF because
they generally refrained from such juvenile word substitutions.

------
st3fan
_When you talk about the risk of software as a service, you can mention that
the US gov't is attempting to collect identifying user data from the Wikileaks
Twitter account, or the recent domain name seizures of PokerStars and other
online gambling websites.

These are practical consequences of a lack of Free Software_

Huh Wut!?

How is free or open software going to prevent any company from receiving a
court order to disclose data about its users?

This has nothing to do with technical implementation of a service.

~~~
AlexeyMK
Agreed, the point isn't straight-forward. Stallman's argument was against
software-as-a-service and in favor of doing computing locally.

If we were using a decentralized twitter alternative like identi.ca or
status.net, then all of the IP/log data wouldn't be in Twitter's hands to give
in the first place. This is the 'if you let other people do your computing for
you, you lose control/freedom over your data' argument.

The same logic (albeit less convincingly) applies to PokerStars - if we were
using some sort of Bitcoin-driven, no-single-point-of-failure architecture for
online poker, the US government wouldn't have been able to shut down the
operation nearly as easily.

------
derrida
I've always found a connection between brilliance and "yelling at cars on the
side of the road." Take the good with the bad.

~~~
polynomial
I've read a number of your books and never drew that connection before,
thanks.

Also, I thought that guy looked a lot like RMS, but I was going too fast to
get a good look.

------
jberryman
I really appreciated the tone of this piece. Respectful, well written and
convincing.

------
angus77
I pretty much agreed with everything except the ridiculous idea that Stallman
should try out Google Docs so he could see how "good" it is.

~~~
jackvalentine
I don't understand your objection. It is an amazingly simple tool for
collaborative editing and I don't know of any free software alternatives that
are as easily usable.

~~~
angus77
I don't doubt it, but if you think Stallman is interested in a product because
it's "better" than another product then you really don't know what Stallman's
values are at all. Stallman's not objecting to it on the grounds of it being
poor software, nor is he making the claim that it _is_ poor software.

If someone's on a diet and refuses to eat chocolate because that would be
against the point of the diet, countering with "I think you should try it---it
tastes so _good_ " completely misses the point.

~~~
jackvalentine
To act like free software can entirely ignore what closed-source software does
is a bizzare position to take though. Simply the act of using high quality
software (closed or open) gives you insight, inspiration and direction for
whatever you're working on.

I know Stallman isn't interested in products because they're "better". But he
should be - even if only to push the free software movement to make itself
even better.

------
bad_user

        today's proprietary stuff isn't marijuana; 
        it's heroin, and it's really, really good
    

I beg to differ -- today's proprietary software is exactly like marijuana.

When it comes to freedom, there's is no black & white classification, only
shades of gray. And the whitest of them all are the BSD-like licenses, which
are frowned upon by the FSF.

And the reason I think proprietary software is like marijuana is because you
CAN be careful when using it, you can also take it in small dosages where it
makes sense, you're only required to use it responsibly to not end up hooked
with freedoms lost.

And of course, for some people marijuana usage turns into heroin -- but
everybody fears heroin and heroin comes with a heafty price for the junkies,
which isn't that good in the eyes of consumers (best things in life tend to be
cheap ;))

Also, leaving this analogy behind -- let's take as example GIMP.

Gimp is awesome for what it does and I actually think its grotesque interface
is the reason why I ended up working with masks, really groking effects like
smart-sharpening.

But if you're deep into photography, using Gimp is unacceptable. First, it has
serious limitations like 8-bits per color (which means you're losing color
info, when importing from RAW formats, or when composing layers -- and as a
practical consequence, correcting over/under-exposed photos becomes a
nightmare). CMYK support is hackish at best, and photographers (professional
or passionate amateurs) do print their photos (whether it's for selling, or
for doing exhibits). Then, while the UI forces you to learn about the inner-
workings of digital image processing, it becomes a pain in the ass to quickly
retouch hundreds of photos (unless you can do them as a batch, with some
scripting, but since every photo is unique, no, you can't).

So comparing a product like Adobe Photoshop, which provides real/measurable
value to photographers, with a drug that you can get rid of -- that's
stretching it a lot. I also view a product like Photoshop as something that
gives you more freedom for expression -- also saving you bucks which you'd
spend otherwise on extremely high-priced gear.

------
cosmok
It is almost impractical for me to be like Stallman and shun a lot of
Hardware/Software. But, I do not wish for Stallman to be any less radical than
he is as: by being radical he gains my attention and some of his thoughts and
ideas stick with me and, it has made me think about 'freedom' while buying any
piece of Hardware/Software.

I would never want to work him on anything - I watched him tear apart people
while responding to their concerns - but, people like him are essential to the
Free Software movement.

------
FrojoS
I respect RMS a lot, too, but I have to agree with this piece. He clearly
tries to be a PR/sells person first of all. An advocate for free software in
all industries and all other parts of society. Why then, doesn't he play to
the rules of society where it makes obvious sense? As much as I find his
stubbornness personally sympathetic, I doubt he is doing the FSF a favor at
this point.

As an example I know from the people at MIT Open Course Ware, that even though
they share a very similar view on free information, and RMS can show great
achievements, it was really hard to use RMS as an effective advocate for OCW.
The key audience was simply turned off by his appearance. As smug as that
might sound.

In reality, you can hardly put people into sales, when they refuse to wear a
tie every so often.

------
originalgeek
It's too late for RMS. Once a pickle, never a cucumber.

------
ralfd
Sorry, I cant read something about RMS without remembering his horrific foot
incident:

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I25UeVXrEHQ>

------
autarch
I think Stallman needs to read this book -
<http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/159056233X>

Activism doesn't need to be mysterious, there's lots of psychological research
that you can look to when you ask "how can I convince people to {go vegan,
support software freedom, support gay rights}?"

------
flocial
Isn't marginalization the whole point of FSF? They want to attract people
committed to free software not appeal to popular culture. Dressing RMS up and
giving him public speaking lessons will not change the ideology. His image as
it stands is consistent with his image, the complete opposite of Steve Jobs.

------
Tichy
Damn you, Photoshop (presumably the only piece of closed software some people
just can't do without).

~~~
hernan7
Lots of proprietary software in the music industry too. Even if you want to
create music as a hobby on your computer, things like samples are all in
proprietary formats.

~~~
vog
_> things like samples are all in proprietary formats_

This is not exactly true. There do exist free samples in open formats, for
instance the Freepats project:

<http://freepats.zenvoid.org/>

------
kraemate
I had submitted something about Stallman and his genius some days back :
[<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2471620>]

------
6ren
> When we asked, you mentioned that you do not write much code anymore.

This may be partly why he seems out of touch with programmers.

~~~
zdw
He also went through a period of time where he was having wrist trouble which
cut down on his programming output:
<http://oreilly.com/openbook/freedom/ch09.html#15416>

(the zinger here would be a comment on finger gymnastics required to enter all
those parenthesis is elisp)

------
poink
I think RMS's most likely response to this article would be, "If I hadn't been
so crazy, you wouldn't have written about my talk at all."

If I were in his shoes, I'd be crazy too.

------
pgbovine
minor nit: i don't think rms is a "Dr.", since he didn't get a Ph.D. (unless
he has a secret M.D.)

From wikipedia: "Stallman then enrolled as a graduate student in physics at
MIT, but abandoned his graduate studies while remaining a programmer at the
MIT AI Laboratory. Stallman abandoned his pursuit of a doctorate in physics in
favor of programming."

perhaps he has an honorary doctorate?

~~~
roadnottaken
From the same wikipedia article:

1996: Honorary doctorate from Sweden's Royal Institute of Technology [85]

2001: Honorary doctorate, from the University of Glasgow [89]

2003: Honorary doctorate, from the Vrije Universiteit Brussel [91]

2004: Honorary doctorate, from the Universidad Nacional de Salta. [92]

2007: Honorary doctorate, from the Universidad de Los Angeles de Chimbote.

2007: Honorary doctorate, from the University of Pavia [93]

2008: Honorary doctorate from the Universidad Nacional de Trujillo, in Peru

2009: Honorary doctorate, from Lakehead University [94][95]

RTFA :)

~~~
cgray4
I don't think an honorary doctorate entitles one to be referred to as Dr. In
fact, most people with doctorates that I know would rather not be referred to
as Dr. In the case of this article, it seems like the author is trying to be
overly-formal in the manner of a Keith Olbermann rant.

~~~
yahelc
Seems like he's referred to frequently as 'Dr. Stallman', including on
gnu.org.

[http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%22Dr....](http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%22Dr.+Stallman%22+site%3Agnu.org&aq=f&aqi=&aql=f&oq=)

~~~
cgray4
Yuck.

~~~
cookiecaper
While I know that the regular practice is to refrain from calling recipients
of honorary doctorates "doctor", I think that in some cases it's reasonable.
Stallman is definitely more deserving of the title than many "real" Dr.s that
you'd find.

Maybe universities need a new class of degree called "honorary doctorate and
we mean it for this guy".

