
Stallman’s Law - BuuQu9hu
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/stallmans-law.html
======
stcredzero
Here's the thing about Richard Stallman -- he's absolutely correct in all of
his principles and all of his underlying thinking. He's as intellectually
farsighted as anyone I can think of in tech. However, all of the movement
around him and the resulting "outreach" efforts have been rather shortsighted
in comparison.

Let's use environmentalism as an analogy. There is a place for an absolutist
intellectual position, when it comes to the underlying science. However, much
of the tremendous progress that has been made with respect to the global
environment has been a tenacious "foot in the door, while they're slamming it"
struggle, where allies and politics are vital. This is why I found the FSF
animosity towards "Open Source" perplexing. If a group is advocating for
freedom, I find it perplexing when they seem to be coercing me to be free in
exactly the way they deem correct. While leadership is vital in any movement
(I think that leaderless movements generally fall off the rails and tend to
spawn extremist groups) one of the primary reasons leadership is vital is to
set the tone and morality of the movement. A firm philosophical and
intellectual grounding is also vital, but it can't stand alone if the tone and
morality of the movement allows it to succumb to any human group's natural
tendency towards jingoism. RMS always got the intellectual far-seeing right.
In terms of tone and politics: fairly close to dead wrong. Basically, he could
impress college aged me, then alienate working aged me.

~~~
ktRolster
_This is why I found the FSF animosity towards "Open Source" perplexing_

I think you've misread something somewhere. Here is what the FSF says about
"Open Source," and it doesn't seem like animosity:
[https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-
freedom.htm...](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html)

 _" We disagree on the basic principles, but agree more or less on the
practical recommendations. So we can and do work together on many specific
projects."_

~~~
daveguy
"Disagree on the basic principles" is diplomacy 101 fail -- a great way to
project animosity. It is the basic principles on which they _agree_.

~~~
cyphar
What are the basic principles of "open source"? Because as far as I'm aware,
they don't include "user freedom". It's all about practical benefits which are
not the primary benefits of free software (the primary benefit of free
software is freedom).

~~~
ghaff
>Because as far as I'm aware, they don't include "user freedom".

I'd largely disagree with that. I see "Open source" described (and describe it
myself) as something that has many advantages as a way of developing software
and developing communities (users and developers) around that software. But,
at the same time, it's absolutely about letting users maintain control and
being able to directly influence the direction of development.

~~~
cyphar
The "open source definition"[1] does not agree with your reading. In fact,
that annotations appear to entirely skirt around the issue of freedom. For
example, their claimed reasoning for freedom 1 (freedom to modify) is:

> The mere ability to read source isn't enough to support independent peer
> review and rapid evolutionary selection. For rapid evolution to happen,
> people need to be able to experiment with and redistribute modifications.

No mention of user freedoms or why this is important to users, just some
nebulous claim that this is related to "evolution" and "experimentation".

The entire OSD is written like this, with claims that the 10 completely-
arbitrary-with-no-real-logic-behind-them tennants of "open source" will
somehow make your software better. How? They don't say. The four software
freedoms make sense if you discuss them from the context of freedom, but the
10 "open source" rights don't make sense outside the context of freedom.

[1]: [https://opensource.org/osd-annotated](https://opensource.org/osd-
annotated)

~~~
misrepresent
Do you think one mission statement on one website represents the position for
all of us?

~~~
catern
Clearly this has now devolved into mere semantics, but... if your position
emphasizes user freedom, then your position is the "free software" position,
not the "open source" position, just as a matter of the historical definitions
of those terms. "Open source" was coined for the explicit purpose of de-
emphasizing user freedom (that is, making the idea of FOSS more palatable to
companies that were not interested in allowing user freedom). So...

~~~
ubernostrum
And yet you're pushing connotations onto it.

"Open source" was meant to be a way to frame the discussion in different
terms. Yet by saying that it was "for the explicit purpose of de-emphasizing
user freedom" you sneakily imply motives to the people who coined and promoted
the term. Once parsed out, rhetorically it's about as sensible as post-9/11
"they hate us for our freedom" discourse in the US.

~~~
cyphar
> "Open source" was meant to be a way to frame the discussion in different
> terms.

Yes, and the free software movement's main "terms" are user freedom. So by
your own admission, "open source" _was_ coined to de-emphasising user freedom
(or rather, framing the discussion around "terms" different than user
freedom). It's a matter of public record where the term "Open Source" came
from.

~~~
ubernostrum
"De-emphasizing user freedom" makes it sound like there's an actively freedom-
hating agenda at work. That's the connotation it carries. And that's the
problem. I could just as easily find ways to imply sinister motives in "free
software" \-- actively de-emphasizing the ability of programmers to make a
living, for example -- but I prefer not to argue that way, y'know?

"Open source", as a term, is about emphasizing a different set of benefits
that come from license terms that let anyone run, modify and distribute code
for any purpose they choose. The careful way you word your comments to
highlight negatives and avoid positives makes it seem obvious that you don't
like that and want to make it sound sinister when it isn't. My advice to you
would be, if you're going to lie, at least be honest about it!

~~~
cyphar
> actively de-emphasizing the ability of programmers to make a living, for
> example -- but I prefer not to argue that way, y'know?

Because such an argument would be incorrect (not just a "re-framing", it would
be a fundamentally flawed argument). Aside from the naming, free software
fundamentally gives users the right to sell software as well.

> The careful way you word your comments to highlight negatives and avoid
> positives makes it seem obvious that you don't like that and want to make it
> sound sinister when it isn't.

The positives of "open source" are the same positives as free software. The
only difference is the framing, which is a negative IMO. I'm not sure how
you'd like me to discuss my issues with "open source" \-- should I list the
benefits (that are identical to free software) while doing a comparison to
free software? Such a comparison would be redundant.

The only tangible benefit of the term "open source" is that it is more
friendly to corporations because "free" has two meanings in English. But since
it only takes a minute or two to clarify the meaning, I don't see why that
should be a priority when the downside is that you don't educate users about
the importance of user freedom.

------
makecheck
Corporations need to be treated as if they could have radically different
managers at any moment (because they can). The Best Company Ever of today
could be bought by Worst Corporation In Existence tomorrow.

It essentially doesn’t matter what a company is currently doing or “promises”
to do or not do, if those behaviors are not legally binding. And even then, if
you have to read a hundred-page document to figure out what the legal binding
is, assume that the company has carefully placed a nice escape hatch somewhere
in their legalese.

It was supposed to be true that if one vendor does something you don’t like,
you simply “vote with your wallet” and go to one that you do like. That works
great when buying toasters. Yet now, with essentially your whole life tied up
in one or two devices and key services like Internet being dictated by one
company based on where you live, it is REALLY hard to just walk away from one
crappy technology experience and find something you like better. This is a
real sign that it is not a good idea to have so much technology powered by so
few corporations.

~~~
zdw
If anyone needs an example of the first point, look to what happened to Sun's
free/open projects and firmware downloads after it's acquisition by Oracle.

------
roflchoppa
Interesting that the more "advance" technology gets, the lower our reasonable
expectation of privacy becomes.

I want to know when the average person gets on a computer, and surfs around,
what data do they expect is kept for just themselves vs shared with the
service.

~~~
marcus_holmes
I don't think the "average person" even thinks about data privacy at all.

I've seen people tell other people to "get off MY feed!" as if it's a thing
they own and can control. As long as the platform can maintain this illusion,
everyone will be happy.

~~~
roflchoppa
thats a good point, also interesting that people get territorial over digital
space.

------
oelmekki
And yet, today's big opensource projects often are driven by big corps.

I wonder how rms would reconciliate that. Maybe we can get there the
difference between opensource and freesoftwares?

In any way, having big companies publishing opensource code tell us how past
we are the time when every single company will just publish proprietary
software and let you guess the specs.

~~~
marcus_holmes
I think there's a few drivers for big corps getting involved in open source:

1\. Getting intelligent people to work on projects for free. This is actually
rarer than it sounds. But it does happen.

2\. Protecting dependencies. Once a large company depends on a piece of
technology, it has a vested interest in the future of that piece of
technology. For proprietary code bases, this might mean buying the supplier.
For open source, it means getting involved in the project.

3\. It's their business model. Create a popular open source project and then
provide paid support to organisations that use it.

4\. Recruitment. Getting involved in the communities where skilled people hang
out, and being seen to be involved in those communities, is great for
recruiting those skilled people.

5... other reasons (I thought of a few more but decided not to attempt an
exhaustive list)

It's all commercial reasons - how to make more money from this software
project.

RMS' view often seems to come from a place where all commercial organisations
are inherently evil and out to do their users harm.

I believe that 99.9% of the market for a piece of software are never going to
be interested in taking responsibility for the safety of that software. You
can give them all the rights you like, but they're not going to use them. The
supplier of a piece of software will always be held responsible for its
safety. It's not surprising that the supplier will attempt to exert some kind
of control over the use of the software, if only to reduce their liability.

Again, commercial interests. Trying to do the best thing for everyone.

~~~
oelmekki
> RMS' view often seems to come from a place where all commercial
> organisations are inherently evil and out to do their users harm.

Yes, this was the thinking in early 2000', and indeed this was a proper
reaction to the windows context back then. But I don't think that's what rms
is fighting for anymore, I would state it more like : "if I bought it, then I
own it", like when you buy a house, you can do any change in it you want.
That's what is puzzling me in the linked statement, it sounds a lot like we're
back in the 2000'. I guess shortness of statement is killing its details.

~~~
hvidgaard
> like when you buy a house, you can do any change in it you want

Except when you can't. HOA rules, or municipal regulations can prevent you.
Other rules and regulations applies as well.

~~~
erikbye
Exactly, often you are not even allowed to paint your house in a color of your
choosing.

------
cocktailpeanuts
I have no idea when this "law" was written or said, but I think this type of
thinking--in 2016--is exactly the cause of what it's prophesizing.

Instead of thinking from "corporations vs. us", a better approach would be to
think of humanity as a single entity.

I do understand that all this "open software" movement could have an impact
because it was very polarizing and moved a lot of people. But in a world where
open source is the norm, it should not be about fighting against corporations.
The discussion should be on a higher level.

For example, you should think deeper about why it looks like: "While
corporations dominate society and write the laws, each advance or change in
technology is an opening for them to further restrict or mistreat its users".

Only when you look deeper into the corporation's motivations you'll be able to
figure out a way to defeat this. Otherwise it just reads like a rant.

~~~
TeMPOraL
> _Only when you look deeper into the corporation 's motivations you'll be
> able to figure out a way to defeat this. Otherwise it just reads like a
> rant._

It's actually pretty simple - money, power. Corporations are amoral machines;
if there's something that brings profits and they can get away with legally,
some corp will eventually do it (same seems to apply to small companies).

> _Instead of thinking from "corporations vs. us", a better approach would be
> to think of humanity as a single entity._

Thinking like this was always the hallmark of my life. But the more I interact
with actual people, and not just high-school friends but random people; CEOs
and coworkers and shopowners and cleners - the more I realize there is a split
there. Some of us think of humanity as a single entity worth caring about.
_Others don 't give a fuck_. They think of "me, family and friends vs. the
rest of the world". Which makes it easy to justify fucking "the rest of the
world" for profit. I don't really know how humanity is to reconcile those two
worldviews.

~~~
spangry
The thing I sometimes have trouble with is:

1\. Corporations behave like sociopaths.

2\. Corporations don't really exist. They're a legal fiction that, in reality,
is just a group of people working towards a common goal (maximum profit).

I wonder if it's counter-productive to think and speak of corporations as some
sort of separate entity to the people it is composed of. I think the notion
that 'corporations are evil sociopaths' is one of those thought-stopping
'mind-killers'. Corporations don't have intent, good or bad; they don't really
exist (except in our minds).

As harsh as it may sound, if we want a 'corporation' to behave ethically, then
we should assign blame to those that are perpetrating the harm: to the
employees, managers and owners of that corporation. It's their collective
efforts and actions that have led to unethical outcomes, not the singular
effort of some invisible corporate spectre.

I think it's the only possible way to fight this 'diffusion of responsibility'
that allows a whole bunch of (mostly) normal people to all do tiny unethical
acts that, when viewed in aggregate, are abhorrent. I suspect whatever the
best solution is will be similar (or analogous) to how you overcome the
'bystander effect': rather than saying 'someone call 911', say 'you, guy in
the red shirt ( _point at him_ ), call 911'.

tl;dr - It turns out the Ring of Gyges is not a ring at all. It's a multi-
story building filled with rows of cubicles.

~~~
scalio
Thinking of corporations in terms of its employees means said employees have
to take responsibility for their products. I'm all for it.

The same can be applied to governments (though I believe it's less of a
problem than with corporations): it's not "the government" that's fucking
things up, it's the people in it.

~~~
meshr
I agree. Moreover, we have ‘smart contracts’ technology now to make
responsible society real. The problem is that we have too much parasites in
human society who fight against progress in this area to protect their status
quo. I think that in future responsible people won’t share the same
economics/law system as irresponsible one, the same way humans are separated
from the animals now. This split will happen once the world bullshit reaches
its critical mass to make all reasonable people to unite.

~~~
scalio
Huh, do you think all the status-quo-preserving douchebags will want to live
by themselves? That's no fun, is it? Then again, the internet is young. Maybe
such segregation would work, but I'm not a fan of the idea. I'd rather try
getting everybody on the intellectual boat, mostly to avoid segregation but
also because smart asshats exist (my hope being that the beauty of responsible
society swings them over).

------
api
The opposite happened when mainframes and minis transitioned to PCs, but he's
right from the 2000s onward.

Something changed, and I'm not 100% sure what. Tech is reflecting the larger
political trends of the world where strong man rule and other forms of
authoritarianism are ascendant.

I do think the driver is democratic to an extent. People seem to be demanding
less freedom in exchange for convenience, security, simplicity, etc... in tech
and in life.

------
gaur
No, you can't just take a statement and call it a "law", even in a facetious
sense.

Murphy's law, Betteridge's law, or other facetious laws are at least roughly
formulated as "if X, then Y" (or sometimes "Y happens"), which mimics the
structure of actual scientific laws. Stallman's statement is formulated as "if
X, then maybe Y" (or "Y could happen").

~~~
bertiewhykovich
"If corporations dominate society and write the laws, then each advance or
change in technology is an opening for them to further restrict or mistreat
its users."

Also, you definitely can, tongue-in-cheek, call a general statement a "law."
It's not meant to be taken in a literal sense; it's meant for humorous or
broadly pragmatic effect.

~~~
gaur
You've explicitly rewritten it as "if X, then maybe Y", exactly as I said.

"If corporations write the laws, then _maybe_ they will restrict or mistreat
their users." That's not a law.

~~~
loup-vaillant
That's not a "maybe" any more by now. Corporation are meant to maximise
profits, at the expense of everything else, _except_ braking the law —and even
that is debatable. Some jurisdictions even have laws to enforce that mindset.

As soon as profit maximization is at odds with the user's interests (that's
pretty much all the time), the corporation will naturally act against the
user's interests.

From this, I'm pretty sure "law" is a relatively accurate descriptor.

------
known
Essential Rules of Tyranny

Rule #1: Keep Them Afraid

Rule #2: Keep Them Isolated

Rule #3: Keep Them Desperate

Rule #4: Send Out The Jackboots

Rule #5: Blame Everything On The Truth Seekers

Rule #6: Encourage Citizen Spies

Rule #7: Make Them Accept The Unacceptable

[http://www.alt-market.com/articles/198-the-essential-
rules-o...](http://www.alt-market.com/articles/198-the-essential-rules-of-
tyranny)

~~~
logicallee
Based on the context, I _expected_ your list to remind me of how corporations
have been treating users lately (I thought this was the point you're making) -
but out of these 7 rules only #7 seems to apply? What I mean is that #1, 2,
3,4, 5, and 6 literally don't seem to be happening? (At least, they don't
remind me of anything?)

------
agumonkey
I wish Stallman got back to its printer roots. Hardware is where the battle
is. Good enough GPU / DSP / NIC and the rest is set. Sane not too hard to
write drivers that works fine under open source OSes, enjoy prolongated
lifetime for your devices and more interesting uses.

------
necessity
`s/corporations/government` and this is still true

~~~
api
The two blur together at the top.

~~~
grzm
The objectives, roles, and responsibilities are significantly different.

~~~
scalio
In theory, yes. The problem is that many government officials act to further
corporations' objectives for example by enacting laws enabling or making shady
activities easier.

~~~
grzm
Yup. And that _is_ a problem, isn't it? Because it shouldn't be that way. We
should work to limit such influence, not just throw up our hands and say
they're the same.

~~~
scalio
Oh of course, but do you have any practical suggestions? I fear the whole
thing needs to be ripped apart to have any chance of actual change as opposed
to the less-than-superficial "yeah that's a problem, gotta do something about
that, don't we?" _rubs nipples_ that politicians are spewing out when faced
with criticism.

Point is, corruption played such a major role in building the modern world
it's impossible to get rid of while maintaining capitalism as it stands.

The old school solution would be a bloody revolution. Needless to say, not
something I'm in favour of. On top of that, modern surveillance makes me very
pessimistic as to its outcome. (Could that be a measure to determine what's
too much surveillance? When revolution becomes impossible?)

~~~
grzm
There's the rub :) I feel a lot of the frustration you're expressing as well.
I really don't like contemplating refreshing the tree of liberty with iron-
rich, crimson, liquid manure.[-1]

I don't have a history of political activism, and haven't done a lot of
reading on it, either, so anyone can rightly accuse me of some level of
earnest, well-meaning naïvieté. I'm also not much of a politician, so that
naïvieté counts double.

Any suggestions I'm putting forward are suggestions and ideas for _me_ ,
first.

\- Continue to honestly and charitably engage as much as possible with people
that may not agree with me. Refrain from speaking from emotion, taking extra
time to word things as best as I can. The goal should always be to reach
understanding, if not agreement. And not agreeing is okay. Remember that if I
don't have an open mind to understand their point of view, it's very unlikely
they'll be open to understanding mine. Keep in mind Rapoport's Rules[0] as
much as possible, as well as understand how others can come to different
political positions (Jonathan Haidt's "The Righteous Mind" is a great resource
for this.)

\- Push back when possible against the idea that government is a business.
There are definitely areas of overlap and skills that can be useful in both
domains, but the two are not, nor should they be, the same.

\- Work to increase election security. It's largely non-partisan and in
everyone's best interest. verifiedvoting.org looks like a great place to
start. In particular, push to remove direct recording electronic voting
machines.

\- Work to increase transparency into government. Support work like that of
the Sunlight Foundation[1] (which unfortunately looks like it's shutting
down[2]), and other open government organizations, both monetarily and letting
people know that this type of information is available.

\- Actually contact my representatives to express my views on issues that are
important to me.

\- With respect to corruption directly, recognize that this is also a largely
non-partisan issue. Different types of corruption are important to different
people, and that's okay. Be especially open to accusations of corruption of
those you support. Learn as much as you can about the situation. If they're
groundless, lay out that evidence civilly and calmly. If there is some support
for them, be up front about it. After all, you want the people you support to
be open and forthright, and with integrity. If they're seriously corrupt, do
you really want them to represent you or support you, even if they agree with
you on a lot of issues? And accept across the board that things aren't likely
to change overnight, that sometimes compromises need to be made.

\- Learn more about how comparable issues have been resolved in the past. The
first that comes to mind wrt corruption is Tammany Hall[3].

\- Don't try to solve all the problems. Pick one that's important to you so
you don't spread yourself too thin. Remember that for most there's more to
life than just politics.

Looking over this list, it does look hand-wavy. That said, the current
polarization is one of the most troublesome issues we're facing. It prevents
us from working together on the things we agree on. So while "listen more,
understand those you disagree with" may sound Pollyannaish, I honestly think
it's crucial.

[0]: [https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/03/28/daniel-dennett-
rapo...](https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/03/28/daniel-dennett-rapoport-
rules-criticism/)

[1]: [https://sunlightfoundation.com](https://sunlightfoundation.com)

[2]: [https://govpredict.com/blog/sunlight-foundation-gone-who-
wil...](https://govpredict.com/blog/sunlight-foundation-gone-who-will-make-
gov-data-transparent/)

[3]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tammany_Hall](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tammany_Hall)

Edit to add: [-1]: Figure out for yourself _beforehand_ what the tipping point
is for increased political action. I found Dan Carlin's most recent "Common
Sense" podcast episode "Trumped" useful in thinking about this particular
topic.

~~~
scalio
Very nice. I don't know what my tipping point is, but I suspect we have long
since overshot it. The only reason everything's so relatively peaceful is
because of the lack of transparency. We only ever hear what's going wrong if
it leaks, which I postulate to be only a small fraction of total shitty
goings-on.

I've been thinking about (2) recently, and a separation of Bank and State akin
to the separation of Church and State came to mind.

For one, completely disallow gov. officials to get on a private lobbying
payroll and vice-versa. Infringement by not naming the position "lobbyist" but
"turd sandwich" provokes harshest penalties and analysis of the person's work
during their time in Congress or wherever in order to find dishonest activity
(which ideally would then be rolled back. Easier said than done).

Secondly, make bail-outs impossible. When a private company fucks up, that's
by definition a private problem, not a public one. The public cannot be forced
to account for a private entity's stupidity or evilness.

Couldn't agree more with (4). Without having explored the question far and
wide, I'd say

\- Public entities have no right to obscurity except in very specific cases
like access to and storage of peoples' private data. That implies that certain
data is stored in a way it can only be decrypted by the owner or an authorized
third party (owner issues a key to th.p.), while other data is completely
open.

\- Private entities, on the other hand, have complete protection (freedom of
speech|thought|religion, yadda yadda).

\- Private-public entities like multinational corporations (the tiny general
store 'round the corner is private, not sure where to draw the line; when
there's more than one branch/subsidiary?) have a mix of those rights, i.e.
perfect, undiscriminating accountability and transparency has to be possible
should enough doubt crop up about the company's honesty.

(1)(5)(6)(7) Yes. Better communication, more honesty and personal
responsibility certainly go a long way to improving the situation and
empowering the people.

(8) Very important. Personally, I don't engage much in my local politics other
than reading the paper and voting. The only demos I've ever been on where
against TTIP, which is as much an economic issue as it is a political one. I
like to say "Do you part and hope for the best", and my part is in software.
In the mean time, let's hope nothing craps out.

"Listen more, understand those you disagree with" _is_ crucial. There is
disagreement, so obviously there's a problem somewhere that the other side
doesn't know about. Understanding the other side means understanding other
peoples' problems, means having a broader view of the situation, means having
better tools to do something about it. Good communication is key, but honesty
is crucial. To quote Wilde: "Anybody can say charming things and try to please
and to flatter, but a true friend always says unpleasant things, and does not
mind giving pain. Indeed, if he is a really true friend he prefers it, for he
knows that then he is doing good."

------
known
The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no
defect: they're pure tyrannies. --Chomsky

~~~
witty_username
Corporations are democratic because they have shareholders.

------
kome
I had to use an iPad for the first time in my life recently, and I have to say
that Stallman is right.

------
atemerev
s/corporations/governments/. Or at least "corporations and governments".

~~~
Maken
A government is just a corporation that manages a country.

~~~
blowski
You have to ignore reams of political science to believe that claim.

------
greyman
I worked for a corporation for 12 years, and I was in a team developing
software for CT scanner operations. What's wrong with that? Then I also worked
for a very small company, where I coded... games. So according to the RMS,
that could be morally less wrong. :-)

------
phn
I don' disagree with the law itself.

However, each technological advance is also an opportunity to break free from
restrictions and mistreatment from the previous status quo.

------
icomefromreddit
Interesting. Sounds very Kaczynski to me:

[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
srv/national/longterm/unabo...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
srv/national/longterm/unabomber/manifesto.text.htm)

------
vonklaus
This is tangential, but isn't [http://www.root-servers.org/](http://www.root-
servers.org/) still the authoritative source for DNS. I was browsing DNS
options (switched to open-DNS) but the main [http://www.root-
servers.org/](http://www.root-servers.org/) site is down. It appears to be
cached as recently as this month with a map, but is not responsive. A few
other "detector" sites have it down. Is this important, or does it not show up
because it is a resolver?

