Stallman has said in numerous talks that he doesn't own a cell phone because not only due to lack of respect for his software freedom but also because they are (more properly identified as) trackers. He rightly objects to handing over data to track his location, as is part of a cell phone's normal operation. As with so many of these issues, his precience in looking out for his own privacy predates the headlines—Jeremy Scahill and Glenn Greenwald of The Intercept report that the NSA has been using SIM cards (commonly used with cell phones) tracking data to target drone attacks: "What's more, he adds, the NSA often locates drone targets by analyzing the activity of a SIM card, rather than the actual content of the calls. Based on his experience, he has come to believe that the drone program amounts to little more than death by unreliable metadata.".

As for "openness of source", you'd do well to read the summary /. provided on this story and the links contained therein. One of those links pointed you to a long-published article about how Stallman is not a spokesperson for "open source" and he has pointed out significant differences between his older movement—the free software movement—and the younger open source movement which focuses on development methodology (and is therefore willing to install and recommend nonfree software). That newer essay updates an older essay which has been published in print as well as online.

Stallman has also long pointed out that code in unchangeable hardware (code in ROM, for example) is equivalent to hardware in that the user and the developer are facing the same hurdles to modify that code. So I'd imagine that a toaster with code in ROM would be a candidate toaster for him to own. But so many devices these days have updateable code. If the code can be changed the user and developer might not be on an equal footing with regards to who is allowed to change that code (free software grants you the freedoms nonfree software does not grant). Thus this more common occurrence raises all the issues he's been talking about, writing/publishing software for, and organizing against for decades.

No, the GNU GPL focuses on the rights of the user. Developers and distributors (now "conveyors" in GPLv3) are restricted from exercising powers governments grant them in favor of letting users exercise their rights granted under the GPL (including section 3 aptly named "Protecting Users' Legal Rights From Anti-Circumvention Law", exercising patent powers as described in section 11, and various freedoms and responsibilites for conveying copies in sections 4 through 6).

Perhaps you are confusing the free software movement with the younger open source movement which does frame the issues it addresses in terms of a developmental methodology. The two movements aren't the same and the two movements don't always agree—sometimes reaching radically different results like when faced with powerful, reliable proprietary software.

Stallman has long stated that it is unethical to hold power over the user, and that proprietary (nonfree) software (no matter its purpose) subjugates the user to the developer's control. The free software definition itself says " The nonfree program controls the users, and the developer controls the program; this makes the program an instrument of unjust power.". As we learn of ever increasing uses of this power (many stories carried on /., the ongoing NSA scandal) we learn that software freedom is more important than ever before. Looking at these issues simply as a developmental methodology (throwing out ethical consideration as the open source movement is designed to do) simply won't fix the problem. There are other related issues involved as well, and Stallman has addressed them for years in talks. I recommend any of his talks about "A Free Digital Society". He is, as usual, way ahead of the corporate press and their repeaters on /. regarding these issues.

The FSF's comments on the Hacktivismo Enhanced-Source Software License Agreement (HESSLA) are informative here. HESSLA:

tries to put restrictions of ethical conduct on use and modification of the software. Because it restricts what jobs people can use the software for, and restricts in substantive ways what jobs modified versions of the program can do, it is not a free software license. The ironic result is that the community of people most likely to feel sympathy for the goals of the HESSLA cannot contribute to HESSLA-covered software without violating its principles.

This issue apparently comes up often enough and is important enough where the FSF has published an essay on why programs must not limit the freedom to run them which is also linked to the aforementioned HESSLA commentary.

Considering the FSF's document pointed to above dates back multiple years, I'd say RMS has long answered your question.

The GNU General Public License (GNU GPL) is a strongly copylefted Free Software license which uses the word "prohibit" for multiple things. I'd hardly think an organization would put such language in their license if they objected to the use of the words as you think they do.

For example, Section 2 of the GNU GPL version 3 does what it can to clearly prohibits proprietarization: (emphasis mine)

You may make, run and propagate covered works that you do not convey, without conditions so long as your license otherwise remains in force. You may convey covered works to others for the sole purpose of having them make modifications exclusively for you, or provide you with facilities for running those works, provided that you comply with the terms of this License in conveying all material for which you do not control copyright. Those thus making or running the covered works for you must do so exclusively on your behalf, under your direction and control, on terms that prohibit them from making any copies of your copyrighted material outside their relationship with you.

This prohibition is a good thing because proprietary software subjugates the user to the developer's control; that's why proprietary software is developed and distributed. Proprietary software is often malware and thus a mechanism for spying on the user, removing programs the user wants to keep installed, and more anti-freedom activities that deny users complete control over their computer. This all happens to any user regardless of how skilled they are with computing, or how willing they are to take advantage of their software freedom.

Section 3 of the GNU GPL version 3 prevents conveyers from exercising legal power to forbid circumvention of technical measures:

When you convey a covered work, you waive any legal power to forbid circumvention of technological measures to the extent such circumvention is effected by exercising rights under this License with respect to the covered work, and you disclaim any intention to limit operation or modification of the work as a means of enforcing, against the work's users, your or third parties' legal rights to forbid circumvention of technological measures.

Section 7c of the GNU GPL version 3 "prohibits" misrepresenting material from upstream conveyed copies ("Prohibiting misrepresentation of the origin of that material, or requiring that modified versions of such material be marked in reasonable ways as different from the original version").

Section 11 of the GNU GPL version 3 includes a prohibition to make sure certain patents don't lock users out of exercising the freedoms the license grants.

The details matter: To understand what's going on you have to understand what is being forbidden and prohibited, why these allowances and restrictions are necessary, which users are affected, and how and then evaluate if those causes and remedies are right and proper.

Bill Methmaker says, "FUCK YOU COPS. COME BACK WITH A WARRANT."

Wanda Punchingbag-Methmaker says, "HELL NO. IGNORE HIM. SEARCH IT FROM TOP TO BOTTOM. HE'S MAKING METH, CHEATING ON ME, AND HE PUNCHED ME."

Guess what, that's consent to search. However, I would really hope that the police would at the very least have the person sign an affidavit consenting to the search. Paperwork is important in a nation of laws.

It is no longer strictly a private affair. However, if the government decides to make certain laws that substantially burden some individual's ability to exercise his religion, such as by limiting the conditions under which he may operate a business, then those laws may be found unconstitutional -- something about "congress shall make no law" blah blah blah.

I think it's not as simple as that and we're being confused by the proximate issue. I know that a typical case is "is it okay for a business run by some fundamentalist Christians allowed to refuse service to bake cakes or provide flower arrangements a gay wedding." Let's use different groups here to make the issues clearer. Is it okay for an event-planning business run by a Buddhist to refuse service to plan a KKK rally? To refuse to bake a cake that says [insert offensive thing a KKK member might want on a cake here]? How about just to refuse to provide services to a KKK member? Refuse to provide sale of goods?

If the answer is "no" to the Christian baker's refusals and "yes" to the KKK rally refusal, what are the differences between these hypothetical situations? If relevant, what are the differences between the rally and the general sale of goods? What are the differences between these hypothetical situations and the law(s) being proposed?

Any complex software has bugs and perfection is never available. The important question remains: how are the users treated? If the software respects a user's freedoms to run, inspect, share, and modify the software, users are treated well. If these freedoms are not respected, the user is subjugated. This is an ethical issue with technical ramifications.

Non-free programs (such as Microsoft Windows and Apple's OSes) are designed and licensed to prohibit anyone but the proprietor from understanding how the software works. Nobody but the proprietor can fix bugs or improve the program (I use the word "improve" purposefully subjectively here). And the proprietor could have included a variety of other problems (from the user's perspective) because proprietary software is often malware. A free software system (such as a GNU/Linux system on which nothing but free software is installed) can be fully inspected, shared, and modified by the users. Free software lets users treat each other ethically, non-free software leaves even the most expert users who are willing to do technical inspection/bugfixing work in the dark and prevents them from sharing with others, thus preventing them from helping others.

Software freedom is a far better arrangement for the user. Where non-free software users have to wait for a proprietary binary to patch a problem (possibly introducing new problems and leaving other known problems unfixed such as Apple did for over 3 years with an exploitable iTunes bug during which time governments used the hole to invade people's computers), a free software user has additional options. One can choose to learn to program and fix bugs themselves, one can get someone else to fix software for them (even commercially, by hiring someone trustworthy and appropriate just as one would do to fix other things). No one person can understand all the software they need, there's way too much software to do that. But together we can (and do!) maintain free software systems very well.

That really depends on how far you have to go. In my experience, upright seating might be more comfortable for short distances, and it's probably easier to get on and off. But I bicycle to my office most days, about 4.5 miles one way (which is not long) on a road bike outfitted with a rack and panniers. It is not a "racing" position, but I do lean forward and have drop handlebars. The seat is level with the handlebars.

That position removes a lot of weight from your crotch area, and transfers it to your arms. I find sharing the weight between two areas to be more comfortable, although it requires proper positioning of the handlebars, wearing gloves, and switching grip positions to keep hands and wrists comfortable.

The view is fine, and is amplified by a rear view mirror. Also wearing a high-visibility vest will do much more for your visibility than the difference between the two positions.

Then, the nice thing is I can remove the panniers and easily ride 30 miles or more on a weekend in a reasonable amount of time without needing a second bicycle.

The fun isn't over until you can get a quarterly subscription to a stack of DVDs or USB jump drives or something containing "100,000 of the best [platform] Mobile Apps" delivered to your door for the low, low price of $125 per quarter.

Like the other poster, I coded heavily for hours on end with no such issues you mentioned. Sounds like some serious PEBKAC. I remember installing Red Hat 5 and having to reinstall often because I had screwed up a driver trying to get it to work. Linux sound systems are still a big clusterfuck even today.

Excel, Outlook, and Powerpoint were all really good products in the 90s. IE was even a top product for a period of time.

Ken Ham has lots of followers but that doesn't make most all of what he says true.

The point you fail to understand is that with software that respects a user's freedom, one doesn't need to wait for someone else to fix the bug for them and then hope that bug actually gets fixed when the ostensible fix is released. Users running nothing but free software have options to fix any bug and verify that fix which proprietary software disallows.

The rest of your statement is a form of false dichotomy—arguing from perfection. I never said anything was perfect.

The software Apple distributes to users is proprietary, even if part of that software is built from free software. Proprietary software is never safe for users. Its safety is for the proprietor—what the program allows the proprietor to do to the users.

Apparently memories around here are so short people can't remember when researchers showed Apple can read iMessages anytime Apple wants and the users have no idea which messages are being read. Whether anyone at Apple reads someone's iMessages is a detail so long as Apple can read any iMessage they choose. The same applies to any proprietor for any software which doesn't respect your software freedom. You avoid these problems by avoiding proprietary software.