| |||||||||||||
Stallman: Ubuntu Spyware: What to Do?Stallman: Ubuntu Spyware: What to Do?Posted Dec 8, 2012 23:16 UTC (Sat) by jwarnica (subscriber, #27492)Parent article: Stallman: Ubuntu Spyware: What to Do?
It seems that the well crafted utopia that RMS designed in 1984 doesn't actually reflect real peoples use of computers. RMS very carefully crafted a definition of Free Software, which is very much a developer centric view of the world.
A developer, or any reasonably clued in user, can really deal with this specific problem fairly easily, with some host file fixes. I mean, who has used a computer for more than a couple of years and not done that at least once, to get around some e.g. license server BS? You don't need the source code, and you don't need the right to modify the source code. Source would help, but it might not be the easiest way to actually solve this problem. It being Free Software or not is irrelevant; it being controlled by a corporation is irrelevant. Its not hard to find examples of community (or individual) projects that have tried to do the same.
I'm reminded of some email thread from years ago that RMS was shocked - shocked! - that anyone would buy a gaming console; why would you want a computer you couldn't program? He wasn't talking about hacking up the kernel, but just not being able to interface with it with something akin to the programming power of /bin/sh. That such a device doesn't have a GPL'd bash makes it evil, that it doesn't have any shell makes it useless, or so his logic goes.
I'm also reminded that RMS was shocked - shocked! - at the explosion of ASP's in the 21st century, delivering software as a service, and the (arduous) scramble to put together a new version of the GPL to address this evil. How could he of predicted that? I mean, there isn't any way he couldn't of known about 1965 Multics, or 1975 Compuserve is there? Developers! Developers! Developers! No other view was consulted, and no other view is relevant to the vision that RMS has.
The issue is that most people, and developers most of the time, do not interact with their computers as developers did in 1983.
Trying to apply that vision to modern problems is just stupid.
(Log in to post comments)
Reasoning backwards Posted Dec 9, 2012 1:10 UTC (Sun) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] There are plenty of people who watch what is around them and draw short-lived conclusions that apply just to the specific situation. There are a few who try to reason from general principles so their arguments apply to any situation. Stallman is one of the latter; his four freedoms apply just as well to a world of PDP-11's as to the current generation of smartphones.People nowadays complain that their smartphones are outdated and vendors don't upgrade them, just as 10 years ago they complained that their consoles didn't let them run independent (or unlicensed) games; and 50 years ago that IBM was ripping them off with their outrageous charges for software (that others were ready to provide quite cheaper). All symptoms of a deeper malady which is the lack of freedom, as correctly identified by Stallman about thirty years ago. Many people are happy to live in walled gardens; the mainframes of yesterday, the iPhones of today. Stallman is shocked about it every time afresh. Reasonably clueful users can deal with problems that the unwashed masses suffer in silence; Stallman is willing to give everyone a safe computing experience. On the other hand you have many specialized fields today where sharing software is commonplace, licenses are not needed and modifying code to one's needs is allowed and even encouraged. From supercomputers to cloud servers to trendy HTML5 javascript libraries, whole ecosystems that would not exist without Free software (with all four freedoms). Yes, many packages are BSD-licensed, but this does not detract from the argument. You are correct that it is mostly developers who take advantage of these ideas; it is only logical that those who know how to write code would benefit from the freedom to modify a program's code. But let me remind you that millions of people can change the OS on their smartphones thanks to the GPLed Linux kernel, between others. There are also separate movements such as Creative Commons and Open Access which are based on the same principles and that reach a much wider and diverse segment of the population. There are many holes in Richard's original reasonings, the biggest one being cryptographic jails (aka Tivoization), but to be fair it didn't exist back in the 1980s. The problems caused by the lack of this particular freedom (the "freedom to run modified versions", we might call it, which Stallman took for granted) are far reaching. And yet Stallman and the FSF have adapted to the situation, while others (prominently Torvalds and other kernel developers) have stuck with the old license -- and ideas.
Reasoning backwards Posted Dec 10, 2012 19:33 UTC (Mon) by jimparis (subscriber, #38647) [Link]
> The problems caused by the lack of this particular freedom (the "freedom to run modified versions", we might call it, which Stallman took for granted) are far reaching.
I don't think that was taken for granted. It seems reasonably well covered by "The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1)". It can only do your computing if you're able to run it.
Reasoning backwards Posted Dec 11, 2012 9:32 UTC (Tue) by dgm (subscriber, #49227) [Link]
The freedom to modify a copy of your phone's software is clearly insufficient, you also need to be able to run your modified version on the phone. You can argue that this is not about software but hardware freedom, and I would agree, but it doesn't make it any less important.
Reasoning backwards Posted Dec 11, 2012 14:51 UTC (Tue) by jimparis (subscriber, #38647) [Link]
I completely agree; I just don't think Stallman took running it for granted or that running it wasn't covered by the "four freedoms".
Running modified code Posted Dec 12, 2012 3:52 UTC (Wed) by bjartur (guest, #67801) [Link] Let's define freedom 4 then.
Note that, just as RMS has clearly stated already, this is not the right to run modified versions of your program. Vendors are free to distribute software on ROM. They must not expressly restrict owners' writing to memory.
Stallman: Ubuntu Spyware: What to Do? Posted Dec 9, 2012 17:31 UTC (Sun) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] I'm also reminded that RMS was shocked - shocked! - at the explosion of ASP's in the 21st century, delivering software as a service, and the (arduous) scramble to put together a new version of the GPL to address this evil. This one completely misses the mark. RMS is perfectly Ok with "software as service" concept - that's why even GPLv3 does not forbid that. He is very much not Ok with tivoization which is quite novel phenomenon: Multics or Compuserve (or indeed any Unix out there) does not permit modification by just about anybody, but, of course, they are free to hack on for the owners of said system. AGPL does exist, it does address needs of anti-SAS people, but these are not RMS's concern. He was ready to change GPLv3 to make it compatible with AGPLv3, but he was not ready to push it as a default. That such a device doesn't have a GPL'd bash makes it evil, that it doesn't have any shell makes it useless, or so his logic goes. The fact that it does have bash is not a big deal, the fact that it does not have a means to run bash is the problem. The fact that there are plethora of people who try to make it possible to run bash (well, usually not bash but something like XMBC but it's the same thing for this discussion) on game consoles shows that RMS is not loony. Note that most of these guys don't give a damn about GPL or RMS, but they are peeved by the fact that they paid good money for a piece of hardware which they can not actually use as they please.
Stallman: Ubuntu Spyware: What to Do? Posted Dec 10, 2012 12:59 UTC (Mon) by dakas (guest, #88146) [Link] It seems that the well crafted utopia that RMS designed in 1984 doesn't actually reflect real peoples use of computers.If it did, he would be out of a job. I wish he were. As it stands, he is slowing down the progressive loss of computer users' freedoms. Not bad for a one-man show, but not good enough either.
|
|||||||||||||