RMS Calls to Liberate Cyberspace 578
Henri Poole writes "In an interview with Groklaw's Sean Daly at GPLv3 Conference in Barcelona, RMS talks with passion about the dangers of DRM. From the article: 'the point is, we shouldn't be passive victims! We should decide that it will not happen! And the way we decide that is by activism. We have to do everything possible to make sure that those products are rejected, that they fail, that they give bad reputations to whoever makes them.' He closed the interview with a far reaching goal for the Free Software Movement: 'the goal is to liberate everyone in cyberspace.'"
Re:The people who criticise Richard Stallman... (Score:1, Interesting)
RMS can and should be criticized. While his original work was helpful, he has been more of a thorn in the side of free software than a help. With RMS as a de facto leader, nothing has been done. What would the world look like without free software? Mozilla wouldn't exist and we'd be running IE 6 (without any upgrades). NT derivatives would have a larger market share. UNIX systems like AIX and Solaris would have a larger market share. X would suck ass without desktops (we'd still be using motiff wm's).
In short, not an enormous change. When I started using Linux in 95 I didn't think we'd still be this pathetic 11 years later. Granted, Linux has evolved leaps and bounds from the 1.1 kernel I started with, but it hasn't dramatically changed the world like everyone hoped. It's not because of Linus. He's the man and always has been. It's not because of ESR. He knows our limitations. It is because of RMS. He won't budge. Ever.
Where will we be 11 years from now? I'm guessing the same place because we refuse to admit our problems. The free software community has created some amazing software. People don't use the software because the GPL is so rigid. If we used Perl's Artistic License instead of the GPL we'd finally have progress. Who cares if others change your software? It's at least being used and improving the world.
Don't buy it (Score:3, Interesting)
I was thinking don't buy it.
But if you want want to give an aspiring journalist somthing to write about, feel free.
He has the right attitude. (Score:5, Interesting)
This world-wide network has gained a momentum, and there are people in power that are AFRAID of that momentum. With no REAL commercial core, with free speech and architecture giving itself power and stance... These people feel threatened that they will be disregarded. So they start fighting it in their world.
MPAA/RIAA lawsuits. DRM. Internet taxation. F*CK THAT.
How about open standards. Open SOURCE CODE. Open practice and ethics. These are all the backbone of the Internet, such as the Tier 1 Internet providers, Internet exchanges and other entities that share information freely. We *KNOW* how to govern ourselves. It's actually very inspiring, isn't it? No real central authority (except for standards and protocols, like the IEEE and DNS root servers)... These people who don't see how it works right now intend to change it so THEY are the ones calling the shots.
No thanks, I think we can do it ourselves.
He's right. We need to fight. Keep it in the hands of everyone, not a just a few corruptable, power hungry mother f*ckers who want to either make money from it or pat themselves on the back knowing that they are in control.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Place for the truth (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:A very telling exclusion there... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Why would anyone produce shows then? (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:DRM education (Score:3, Interesting)
Isn't Net Neutrality more pressing? (Score:4, Interesting)
3 talks from Eben Moglen on GPL3.0 and DRM (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:The people who criticise Richard Stallman... (Score:2, Interesting)
> in politics finds no home with me.
The thing with extremists, if you do not counter that extremism to an equal degree, then the center point is skewed towards the extremist and the whole ground moves in the direction of the extremist.
Thus it is vitally important to counter to an equal degree the extremists - that is if you value what those extremists are trying to destroy.
From one revolutionary to another (Score:3, Interesting)
It's a funny thing though. He is an American, and what he does is seen as a fight for 'American values': freedom, fairness, equal opportunities etc. But to me as an un-American, this is socialism. A funny, old world, really; to you, as an American, socialism is either cruel totalitarianism or a stoned hippie-dream, but to many elsewhere it is about exactly those freedoms that you Americans value more than anything else. When I was young I used to think of it as 'Cristianity without God'; but of course the ideals are shared by most other religions. Wouldn't it be nice if people could put aside the labels of 'Christian', 'Communist' or whatever and see the person inside?
Re:The people who criticise Richard Stallman... (Score:5, Interesting)
No, no, no. Source code is step-by-step instructions for building a product, it's not (usually) the product itself. (The exception would be for stuff like teaching/educational programs, such as Minix, where the source code is part of the product.) To get the "source" for a car, you need all the blueprints, design schematics, assembly line instructions, etc. to build one yourself from very small parts.
Now you may, from looking at the finished product, be able to deduce some or even most of how the car was made. But that's just reverse-engineering, which you can do with software too (well, less and less these days). All those books you see at your local auto parts store, like the Haynes manuals? They're the result of reverse-engineering the car. Manufacturers have their own manuals which they sell (for big money), but they are more like MS's MCSE books than source code.
Sorry, but the analogy you made is kind of a pet peeve of mine. I think so many people make the same error because cars are so simple (compared to major computer programs) that a regular Joe can look at one and figure most of it out. It's frustrating that we can't do the same with software, but even people who do have the source code can't keep it all straight in their heads. It's why we have APIs.
Re:DRM isn't dangerous. (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:The people who criticise Richard Stallman... (Score:5, Interesting)
And this is the standard false dichotomy that opponents to the GPL like to ask. Of course given only those choices we would rather have proprietary ones. But even better would be free (libre) drivers. And to get those we have to convince the people making the drivers that everyone wants their drivers to be Free. To do that you have to stop accepting the non-free drivers that the companies give you. One we have free drivers, the entire community benefits from better driver software. So the answer to your question is "NO drivers for a little bit leading to free drivers forever is better than proprietary drivers forever."
That's the theory, in any case. But don't make it look as though FSF is trying to cripple your computer for its own lofty ideals. The ultimate goal is to make it so everyone will see it as a mistake if people don't release their software under a free license. There are two major methods to acheive this goal so far: try and win through superior software alone, or, in addition, use your rights as a software writer to make sure your software isn't used against this goal.
Re:The people who criticise Richard Stallman... (Score:4, Interesting)
So, the strongest Christians are those that hold onto their faith (and are not swayed from it) no matter what they hear? Isn't that also head-in-the-sand thinking?
I'm sorry, I don't mean to attack you, but I always had this extraordinary fascination with people who thought holding onto faith was the most important thing and that faith itself was the most sanctimonius and unassailable of emotions (enough tyrants also have complete faith in themselves or their value systems). I mean that assumes so many things, like that the religion they happened to grow up with (in most cases) is the correct one. As opposed to the myriad of others out there.
But wouldn't the strongest Christians be open to new ideas just as they were open to their parents (presumably) faith and that it may actually sway their stance because they personally find more truth in it (it resonates with them more)? What is so magical about the first version of religion they hear that they shouldn't contemplate others?
I'm sorry, I just have to ask as I find blind faith as a version of head in the sand thinking and I have to ask as someone who has some (converted) gnostic friends.
I don't mean to insult or offend:)
Re:Why would anyone produce shows then? (Score:3, Interesting)
That's not true either. Have you heard of PBS or the BBC? While I'm not advocating the elimination of for-profit, private entertainment/media, your assumptions are flawed.
"Encrypt with DRM" is wholly unnecessary in that equation.
Re:The people who criticise Richard Stallman... (Score:4, Interesting)
Note that while in the US, any politician which isn't in the two siamese parties is mostly ignored, in the rest of the world, while they aren't typically in a position to be elected, they do provide input to the general debate and are listened to.
The point of "extremists" is typically to go "over the top" on a given subject so that some more moderate view can be considered by the majority. That's the way it often works in Europe.
Re:The people who criticise Richard Stallman... (Score:2, Interesting)
Answering a question in a sufficiently short statement that satisifies an interviewer does indeed put one's message across, but it is unlikely to get one's message across. Few movements (or politicians, for that matter) avoid redefining the lexicon as they feel is necessary. If what one describes is a new idea or a sufficiently complex idea and that idea is stated many times, it is simpler to use a word or phrase for it. If people are unwilling to accept this, then clearly trying to use them as a platform to communicate to others will fail. I don't consider that in itself extreme.
Re:The people who criticise Richard Stallman... (Score:3, Interesting)
While I'm not a diehard OSS fanatic by any means, (closer to MS professionally than to OSS), I think your broad point is extremely valid: OSS/Software Libre is less about political ideologies, and more about actual tinkering around with technology. Extremely saddening that the community here is increasingly losing sight of this basic truth.
Re:MOD PARENT -1:Blinkered (Score:3, Interesting)
You mean the Open Source community? The one he rejects? I don't think you read my post at all. He continues to declare himself an outsider of the Open Source community. As for this "Open Software" community you speak of, perhaps you're thinking of the Sun community? That's how they refer to themselves. And I assure you, they do not think of RMS as anything approximating a "heart".. although I can think of some other parts of anatomy they have used to refer to him.
Yes, RMS makes a strong ethical stance, but the problem is not with his message - the problem is with him.
Re:The people who criticise Richard Stallman... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:More of the same (Score:3, Interesting)