Richard Stallman Was Right All Along

http://www.osnews.com/story/25469/Richard_Stallman_Was_Right_All_Along

by thomholwerda • 15 years ago

731 226 15 years ago

wycats• 15 years ago

It's worth noting that Obama, upon signing, issued a signing statement that said that he was against the indefinite detention provision, and importantly, that he would not indefinitely hold Americans without trial:

"Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation. My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law."

ninjac0der• 15 years ago

How exactly is that note worthy?

troels• 15 years ago

I can't make out if you mean noteworthy or note worthy?

jonhendry15• 15 years ago

Yeah, great. Even if you believe him, that might mean as little as a year. What about the next administration? What about the administration after that?

Laws last much longer than the administrations under which they are born.

yuhong• 15 years ago

But remember this was just one provision of a larger bill, and I don't think line-by-line veto is possible anymore.

OstiaAntica• 15 years ago

Obama the candidate opposed the use of signing statements.

http://technorati.com/politics/article/signing-statements-re...

tomjen32• 15 years ago

Sometimes I really wished they had elected that guy instead of the other Obama.

aamar2• 15 years ago

It's important to note that Obama makes clear in both his campaign assertion and his official memo that he does not consider signing statements to be problematic in and of themselves. Rather, he argues, their use should be limited in scope and reach, clearly stating that President Bush went overboard.

From Politifact's extensive discussion: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/pr...

Politifact consulted 5 experts, 4 of whom (at the time of consultation) felt he has kept his promise. Politifact itself has currently rated the promise as "compromise", meaning partial fulfillment.

stfu2• 15 years ago

The signing is pure politics. He has to pick his battles and by making a point on civil liberties and playing up to the libertarian crowd he is not going to win a vote. He is more likely going to "make a point" on social issues aka health care, welfare and so on - things that play well with his electorate.

ams61102• 15 years ago

Because tyranny has never been delivered by leaders speaking soothing reassurances.

eternalban• 15 years ago

The apparent mindset that the grandparent manifests is antithetical to the very principles that USA is founded upon. This is not a nation of personality cults; our system is based on checks and balances. (That was the whole point!)

The fact that he signed it and issued that anti-American --- see above -- statement makes the act even more repugnant.

sp3322• 15 years ago

"We have always been at war with Eastasia."

DasIch• 15 years ago

"Niemand hat die Absicht, eine Mauer zu errichten." (Nobody has the intension to build a wall) - Walter Ulbricht

Less than two months after that statement was made the work on the wall that separated Germany for decades started.

Never should a citizen have to trust a representative. The moment you have to democracy becomes impossible.

tomjen32• 15 years ago

Then he should send a powerful signal, rally his base and do something right for a change:

Not sign the fucking document.

blago• 15 years ago

This is even worse: all I hear is that it is a virtue to apply "our most important traditions and values as a nation" when speaking of first-class beings (citizens of our great nation), but we are not bound by anything to extend the same courtesy to others. Embarrassing, humiliating, and sad.

rbanffy6• 15 years ago

You may trust him, but, being signed into law, such provisions requires you to trust each and every successor of his until a contrary provision becomes law.

abjr• 15 years ago

The Act is called "National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012". Is this something that is passed every year? Could the indefinite detention clauses be removed in the 2013 "version" ?

zotz• 15 years ago

> It's worth noting that Obama, upon signing, issued a signing statement...

He originally promised not to sign it at all.

Obama has no cred.

muraiki• 15 years ago

He threatened to veto it because it threatened his power. The Obama administration claimed that the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists Act of 2001 already gave him the authority to detain citizens, and that the original act confused that (by requiring military custody). There is a section that says that the requirement for military custody does not apply to US citizens, but that does not mean that US citizens cannot be detained by the President in civilian custody. This is the section that a lot of people are getting hung up on and saying, "Well, it says right here that US citizens can't be detained." No, it says that US citizens aren't required to be held in mandatory military custody.

ori_b• 15 years ago

It's worth noting that indefinite detention is legal now, regardless of what Obama says his administration will do.

vacri• 15 years ago

As a citizen of a country very strongly allied with the US, but not an American citizen myself, that statement scares me.

Adam503• 15 years ago

Stop listening to Barack Obama talk. Obama talks likes FDR, but Obama's actions have way way to the right. Obama's not way right like Cheney but he is closing in on Reagan. Obama invaded more countries than Reagan, Reagan cut taxes more than Obama. Obama has kept extending Dubya tax cuts. Obama and Mittens borrowed ObamaCare from Bob Dole. Reagan never executed American citizens without trial. Actually, Obama's a bit right of Reagan now.

gorbachev• 15 years ago

http://www.amnestyusa.org/news/press-releases/trust-me-is-no...

"Trust me" is not enough of a safeguard, says Amnesty International, as President Obama signs the NDAA into law

This holds especially true with Obama given how he's almost complete reversed his positions on law-and-order type of issues after he was elected.

paulhauggis2• 15 years ago

Take note who signed it.

dpkendal3• 15 years ago

A Nobel Peace Prize winner? The man who promised to close down Guantanamo Bay and has still yet to manage to do so? Whose election campaign promised "Change" yet whose only significant move in that way so far, in office for 3 years, is the repeal of DADT? The man who I (along with so many liberals) want desperately to believe in, but who just makes it too hard for us?

Yes, that man.

clebio• 15 years ago

Interesting take. I read the parent comment to mean, 'note who signed the OSnews article', which is Thom Holwerda, whose name I'm sorry to admit I'm unfamiliar with.

paulhauggis2• 15 years ago

This is exactly who I mean. People seem to have short memories.

"A Nobel Peace Prize winner?"

For doing what exactly? This actually makes me question the entire Nobel Peace Prize program.

muhfuhkuh2• 15 years ago

The guy who also oversaw an economy that returned 401Ks to at least sane levels from -40% in 2007-8; the guy who actually said and then did get bin Laden; the guy who pushed for and signed a law that is as close to healthcare reform as anyone has gotten since Medicare was enacted almost 50 years ago; the guy who pulled us out of Iraq when the Republican candidate in 2008 said we should be there for 100 more years; the guy who has kept or compromised on over 200 campaign and administration promises?

You can talk of "change" like it's some concrete label you can bend to whatever cares you want, but remember you voted for a President, not a King.

rbanffy6• 15 years ago

If you see a better option, please, let us know about it. We all need hope of a better future.

brown9-2• 15 years ago

People that claim to be disillusioned with Obama don't seem to really grasp that this type of "change" is impossible to manufacture when Congress actively opposes you. The President is just one branch of the federal government; the voters don't elect a dictator for four years.

If you want these type of changes, you need to vote for the people that represent it in each election - presidential, midterms, local elections, all of them. You can't give up on the entire idea because the first guy you get really excited about and who actually wins fails to implement all of it in the first three years.

jasonallen• 15 years ago

Agreed - Stallman was right all along. What's working against Stallman though is that his doomsday predictions are being delivered in piecemeal fashion. Each slight erosion doesn't seem too bad by itself. Only in retrospect does the magnitude of the problem reveal itself. Governments and corporations have evolved processes to change laws in such effective manners as to evade most human observation.

tldr; No one tells you the plane's not coming - they just tell you it's 20m late, perpetually...

jonhendry15• 15 years ago

I think the main flaw is that, no matter how popular GPL software becomes, it doesn't stop the government from saying "your machines need to run this closed-source software in order to be used or sold in this country".

rcthompson2• 15 years ago

That would be a difficult law to enforce without declaring martial law. If smartphones are any indication, it's difficult to design a device that cannot be convinced to run unauthorized code.

16s• 15 years ago

I've heard that North Korea does something similar. People can buy software at Universities, etc. without question, but to get a computer they must go through the government.

jiggy20114• 15 years ago

yes, or it could even be open source spyware that you have to run anyway to be compliant with the law.

Create• 15 years ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog

Tycho2• 15 years ago

I just don't see the relationship between government overstepping the mark... and buying a proprietary product form a company you respect, because you want to use the product and are willing to sacrifice the desirable but non-essential quality of unfettered access to its innards.

...OK, actually I do see the connection. The suggestion is probably that if the technology is not totally open, you don't know how much power you're giving away (the manufacturers could be cooperating secretly with the authorities). But if you really feel like this, all you need to do is refrain from using your iClosedDevice for any type of work or communication that you wouldn't trust in the hands of the manufacturers/authorities.

... And OK, I see the point that we need to support the alternative methods or else their won't be any when we need them. It's just the either/or sentiment that bugs me.

Zirro2• 15 years ago

... And OK, then you saw the point of the article, after all.

EDIT: Lesson to self. Don't post while you have a cold, and pounding headache as a result. It'll get you downvoted.

Tycho2• 15 years ago

But the point of the article seems slightly different from Stallman's stance. The article said 'support Linux, even if you use Windows' - whereas IIRC the FSF says 'never use Windows' or something to that affect.

rimantas• 15 years ago

I fail to see how that Stalman quote applies there. I may be missing something, but how the question what openness or closedness of software has really (I mean really not some hypthetical "possibly maybe somewhere in the future") to do with SOPA. I thought Internet runs pretty much on open source… Or is this now fashionable to bring Stallman into anything even remotely related, because he is like bible "open to interpretation"?

TeMPOraL• 15 years ago

> the manufacturers could be cooperating secretly with the authorities

They might not be doing it now, but there's no telling if they won't start doing it later, when the government will ask for data or surveillance because of terrorist threat or <insert the hottest fear-words at that moment>.

bestes• 15 years ago

How about printers that secretly record tracking info on each page you print? Or the code in PhotoShop that makes sure I can't scan money? We know about these now, but only because they were discovered. I'm not sure if it is even possible to buy a printer with out this "technology".

These are only examples: how about when we find that the government has not only been tracking us via our cellphones, but also activating the mic and activly collecting data? It just is not possible to "choose" not to be spied on, unless you know all the ways the spying is done.

SaintSal• 15 years ago

"His only computer is a Lemote Yeelong netbook, because it's the only computer which uses only Free software - no firmware blobs, no proprietary BIOS; it's all Free." Interesting that it's made in China. I'm trying to reconcile the implications of that... http://www.lemote.com/en/products/Notebook/2010/0310/112.htm...

rbanffy6• 15 years ago

Not surprising. Everything is made in China these days. ;-)

jonhendry15• 15 years ago

And how does he know there are no "firmware blobs"?

glimcat2• 15 years ago

Because he can close his eyes and wish, I suppose. It's a netbook, there are microcontrollers. The microcontrollers have firmware.

Besides which, I somehow doubt that all the relevant microcircuitry is open source.

kevinalexbrown• 15 years ago

One problem with software you don't have control over is that anything is subpoenable. We don't have to wait for the government to impose their own tracking mechanisms, because as soon as they get probable cause, that's it (which includes missing a finger, having >7 days food supply at home, if you believe Rand Paul anyway). Or just look up Google's government transparency report[1]. When you don't have control over your data, it's just a warrant/polite request away from the government.

Not all government access to private data is bad. After all, it's needed to stop things like child prostitution/pornography rings, and yeah, terrorism. But what I liked so much about this article was putting the slippery slope into perspective. It's easy enough to quote the transparency report, "The number of user data requests we received increased by 29% compared to the previous reporting period." and go "well - just 29%" but that's one year. I'll make the surprising bet it doesn't go down. Compare to three decades ago, and a lot of what's happening now seemed draconian then.

[1] http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/

Joakal2• 15 years ago

There's no control over what is bought for customers, or if they're nice, they allow opening it up but there's an automatic gag order. Thanks to anti-circumvention laws among others. Part of the powerful copyright lobby.

spodek3• 15 years ago

"I, too, disregarded Stallman as way too extreme... Only a short while ago I would've declared this as pure paranoia - but with all that's been going on recently, it's no longer paranoia."

I considered him extreme until I thought more about it, then came to agree with him on most major points...

... that was in 1993.

Glad to see others here.

pyrhho• 15 years ago

Since you recognised this issue so long ago, I'm sure you have some recommendations regarding how we can solve it?

lukifer2• 15 years ago

I'll tell one thing which won't solve it: religious zealotry and advocations for everyone in the world to commit to FSF purity.

Open software advocates should treat closed and controlled systems in the same fashion that techies implore content creators to treat piracy: an unstoppable force of nature that must be accepted and competed with, rather than feared and demonized.

Also underlying both issues: the need for improved business models to sustain free software and open content. People like to get paid, and t-shirts + donations doesn't always cut it.

joe_the_user• 15 years ago

Whatever the poster's ideas might be, I have to point out that it is a fallacy to imply that the person recognizing the problem necessarily can come up with the solution or has an obligation to come up with the solution - even if the person has recognized the problem for a long time.

spodek3• 15 years ago

I'm not sure which issue you mean by "this issue," because the freedoms involved in free software touch many issues.

I also can't recommend for others not knowing their needs and interests, but I can tell you some things I do. Maybe some things will translate to what you do.

I use free software as much as possible, running gnu/linux on my computers since 1996. I stopped dual booting about ten years after that.

I give some time to support freedombox -- http://joshuaspodek.com/tag/freedombox -- when I can.

I keep apprised of activities of Stallman, Eben Moglen, and a few others.

I attend conferences when I can, like Debconf.

I hardly code, but I've released a bit GPL'ed.

I support and contribute to Wikipedia.

I talk about free software to people who want to know more.

My art pieces -- http://joshuaspodek.com/tag/unionsquareinmotion and http://joshuaspodek.com/new_bryant_park_in_motion_videos -- run free software.

There's a short list. I'm not trying to save the world all by myself, just to avoid infringing on other people's freedom. All of the above together adds up to a modest amount of time and other resources. I have other priorities for most of my time, but, as I mentioned, I think by making myself aware of the issues, I've reduced how much I'd infringe on others' freedoms.

If you're looking for suggestions, I think asking the questions you asked in an open-minded way will start you off. I expect the more you do, the more you'll learn you can do.

cabalamat2• 15 years ago

Via the technological route, or the political route.

The technological route involves software to enable darknets, and hardware/software to enable ad hoc mesh networking.

The political route involves electing representatives that care about these issues, which the Pirate Party have had success doing, e.g. in Germany and Sweden.

adrianbye• 15 years ago

same for me, except around 2003. RMS is a difficult guy but he tends to be right.

Zigurd• 15 years ago

RMS is difficult because he is consistent, because he is right about difficult topics, and because people have a natural tendency to be comforted by authoritarians. But the issues RMS writes and speaks about are fundamental to human rights, and to the continued ability to create and innovate and create value without getting prior permission.

jaekwon4• 15 years ago

Consider me in, since 2012-01-02.

sadfasdf• 15 years ago

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

That essay is what made me a firm supporter.

jonhendry15• 15 years ago

Okay, he wrote a scary story.

What has he done to promote laws to prevent what he fears, and to fight laws that lead to what he fears?

sunkencity• 15 years ago

Good article but I disagree that supporting "Android (not Google) even though you like IOS" is a valid strategy for openness. android is all about monitoring and datamining the user. Sad to see the good old openmoko project die.

zem• 15 years ago

even maemo and meego were a large step in the right direction.

lunarscape2• 15 years ago

The difference is that I have the source for Android, am running a kernel I compiled myself and have explicit control over all the processes running on it. The only flaw in it is that I have to rely on a closed binary blob for the radio as writing my own would be illegal (FCC etc). It can be treated as a closed circuit though. That's the compromise the openmoko projects are using. Also check out Replicant, Stallman's Android project.

listic• 15 years ago

Even if writing your own firmware would be illegal (would it be, really?), what prevents manufacturers from releasing the code for examination?

Also, radio firmware isn't the only one missing. I think drivers for video and other hardware are not released for no particular reason.

All this contributes to the fact that one cannot build firmware for any Android device from source. Accompanied by the fact that Google gets to do their mining on your data, Android looks just a little more open, compared to iOS. And it's a shame that there is no alternative in sight.

morpher3• 15 years ago

In Sec. 1021 (the one about indefinite detention power), it clearly states:

(e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

So, how does this give the president the supposed power to detain US citizens? (The oft quoted 'slippery' line about not requiring detention Americans is from the NEXT section, which is specifically about requiring detentions in some cases.

rcthompson2• 15 years ago

Because the president says so. Seems to be the justification for a lot of things.

pingswept2• 15 years ago

If this applies as you say, what's the purpose of Obama's signing statement? It seems like it would be unnecessary.

(You're right that this is in the bill, as I just verified here: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr1540enr/pdf/BILLS-11...)

morpher3• 15 years ago

Ok. I see now how this can be abused. Is it saying:

(A) United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the US, or (any other persons who are caputred or arrested in the US)

B) (United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the US, or any other persons) who are caputred or arrested in the US

If one reads this as B, then once a citizen accused of being a terrorist steps foot outside of the country, they are screwed.

jonhendry15• 15 years ago

"If one reads this as B, then once a citizen accused of being a terrorist steps foot outside of the country, they are screwed."

Seems like they already are.

adamtaylor• 15 years ago

How much do these provisions of the NDAA really matter? They are still trumped by the Bill of Rights, which clearly forbids indefinite detention of citizens without trial. (The Sixth Amendment, in particular.) And the Bill of Rights can't be superceded except by a new amendment to the constitution. I still wish these provisions weren't there, because they seem insane to me, but I'm wondering if they're really of very much practical consequence.

morpher3• 15 years ago

I agree that the bill of rights supersedes and I also think that the court would most likely assume that the intended interpretation of the clause above is (A). But, I feel bad for the guy waiting in jail while the case runs through the court system...

chc4• 15 years ago

This article is just a complete non sequitur. The Stallman angle has nothing to do with any of the problems it cites. Free software wouldn't prevent Obama from signing an indefinite detention bill, it won't stop the government from forcing ISPs and DNS roots to do harmful things — the benefits of free software are completely different things.

marquis3• 15 years ago

One example: the free software movement should lead to a better DNS system where governments and corporations will have no control over how and where we access information online. I continue to support the EFF and groups like it in order to have funds directed into research on critical issues like this. Would you prefer a GPL DNS or proprietary?

msbarnett• 15 years ago

The current DNS system is based almost entirely on GPL software...

jonhendry15• 15 years ago

I don't really see how GPL enters into it, as the problems are with laws, policies and regulatory bodies.

The problems with the DNS system that I assume you're alluding to aren't due to the software or the software's license. It's the data the system runs on, and the people with the power to influence that data.

biot• 15 years ago

  > Would you prefer a GPL DNS or proprietary?

False dichotomy. Apache, Firefox, Google Chrome, OpenSSH, and many others have all done quite well and are neither GPL nor proprietary.

burgerbrain• 15 years ago

Stallman has been talking about and focusing about a hell of a lot more than just free software for a long time.

Check out the short story, "The Right To Read" by Stallman. People used to think these sorts of warnings were crazy... now they are practically reality.

chc4• 15 years ago

Stallman might, but the article doesn't mention that. The article basically says, "These two recent laws are scary, so support free software."

If it sounded like I was criticizing Stallman, that's unfortunate, because that wasn't my intention. I was criticizing the article, because it invokes Stallman's name but fails to actually deliver any relevant wisdom from Stallman.

nkvoll• 15 years ago

At least it would allow us to enjoy different implementations of the DNS blocks etc.

jiggy20114• 15 years ago

Pretty much, Even with everyone running 100% FOSS the government could still pass a law that said "commits made by government agencies to any source code repositories must immediately be merged into all branches, compiling a binary without these modifications being intact is a violation of federal law" or something to that effect.

It would make such things easier to spot, but spotting them in itself doesn't seem to be the biggest problem.

fl3tch• 15 years ago

It wouldn't just be easier to spot, it would be immediately known, and thus no one would use it, which is why no government will (almost certainly) ever try. Plus, the code could just be hosted in another country (there are already tons of mirrors of the major FOSS projects).

The security that open source provides is like installing a camera security system in your business. You don't actually expect to catch people in the act of stealing, since they know it's there too. 95% of what it does is deterrence.

strmpnk• 15 years ago

Richard Stallman may have been right about the issue but that doesn't mean is approach to solving these issues nor his philosophy are in the same bucket.

I'd say he's always been right to a point since what he said years ago was true then and happens to be true now at a larger scale. It's not necessarily prophetic, just keenly observant. Likewise we have more free software options today than we did in the past.

My personal opinion is that it'd be wrong to get rid of either end. Eliminating freedom from software ecosystems would be disastrous. Likewise, I don't think free solves all of our software problems either (one could possibly abstain from many things but that's avoiding not solving the problem). SOPA needs to be stopped but lets not assume that non-free software needs to be limited because of this. Live and let live (and never let your guard down).

Craiggybear• 15 years ago

Of course he was right all along. As we will all soon discover to our enormous cost.

Jun8• 15 years ago

You have to counter the forces against freedom with an array of approaches, free software being only one of these. Without having a clear understanding of the economic and political understanding of the driving forces behind the ratcheting up of state control, resistance will be pretty much futile, I fear.

samstave2• 15 years ago

I think we are giving the government and Obama far too much credit for being stupid/naive/uncunning.

Of course the NDAA funding auth is going to be passed. It must be - thus, they throw on insidious clauses like the detainment, and Obama is the lucky guy who just happens to be in the unfortunate position where he must sign it even though he opposed certain items.

Here is an idea: require all laws to be single subject, single focus. If it is a funding measure, it cannot expand powers/modify any existing laws other than to either increase or decrease funding. If it is a law, such as one that is focused on the detainment of [whomever] then that should be a singular law stating under which circumstances this law shall be applied.

This is the number one source of corruption in the government, the ability to abuse the structure of the legal system.

By doing this one thing, you will cripple lobbying, create transparency and create accountability (you'll be able to understand where each rep is on each issue)

e2e8• 15 years ago

You make sound like the administration did not want the powers granted by the bill. This is incorrect. The administration initially opposed the language because they believed it restricted powers they already had to detain indefinatly.

"the authorities granted by the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists, including the detention authority, are essential to our ability to protect the American people... Because the authorities codified in this section already exist, the Administration does not believe codification is necessary and poses some risk."

samstave2• 15 years ago

No, I am saying the administration is expertly farking with public perception.

I am aware of their want to ensure their power was protected.

I am saying that most people are being played to think that obmama expressed "concerns" but was painted into a corner where he needed to sign this. The fact is they ADDED / ENSURED the clauses they wanted were in there, then played the perception of the signage to make it look like they were the VICTIM rather than the perp.

There is a very very good reason obama is a constitutional lawyer as potus.

Hint: it is not to ensure your freedoms.

jkn• 15 years ago

"Here is an idea: require all laws to be single subject, single focus."

The problem is that this goes against a parliament's ability to make deals. Each party has its own priorities, and is willing to compromise on other issues to advance these priorities.

Putting unrelated laws in one bill is essentially a way of formalizing a compromise so that congress can vote on it (with time a complexifying factor that can serve both sides depending on the situation). Do you really want to take this away?

ypcx• 15 years ago

From the "Yeeloong Notebook" page:

"If you prefer warm interpersonal dialogs in solving problems, you can dial our hotline. Technical personnel will provide help in the first time."

Now I can understand Mr. Stallman!

On a more serious note, the only question is: How much worse do things have to get, in order to start getting better?

Besides, the Yeeloong thing coming from China, I wouldn't be so sure it doesn't contain a bit of tracking circuitry.

trotsky3• 15 years ago

Rarely have I come across an article that promised such a ringing endorsement in its title only to find it peppered with bits of snarky back handed compliments.

So it doesn't come as much of a surprise that there wasn't much there even for the mostly uninitiated, still good(?) press is good press.

Surely, I thought, now that we've declared the imminent death of the Liberty and the Internet and its subsequent rescue by Saint Rick we must have hit bottom.

In the fine tradition of the showman the best had been saved for last. Never fear, he says, because Stallman's had our backs all along - it may have taken a long time but thankss to Richard we have Free and Open platforms like Android* that will protect us in the dark days ahead.

* resist temptation, remember: boot locks, carrier installs, 3rd party spyware, location tracking, cloud storage, baseband, drm everything, few security patches, etc.

pg3• 15 years ago

This article doesn't seem to give any examples of specific predictions Stallman made that have turned out to be correct. All the article seems to be saying is that Stallman seemed paranoid, and present events seem to justify paranoia.

(Incidentally, people always feel that.)

Can anyone give some examples of specific predictions Stallman made that seemed surprising at the time, but that have come true? I'm not saying there haven't been any, just that such a list would be more useful than this article.

desireco422• 15 years ago

His paranoia was based on knowledge that only free software, free access and freedom are ways to live your life. You will find very few people who are ready to go to lengths that he went to do what they preach.

tmsh• 15 years ago

I agree the title and wording in the article is not very specific.

However, I think it's mostly just the general point that Stallman makes about free software (the 'prediction' is just that this is important). At the risk of hypothesizing how this point is relevant: freedom to modify software is an inalienable right, which increases the chances of people not taking advantage of other people with technology. Not in any absolute sense (it only increases the chances). But it just makes coming up with solutions to centralized, non-democratic uses of technology (SOPA, etc.) a lot more easy.

Joakal2• 15 years ago

"Right to read" http://falkvinge.net/2011/06/03/stallmans-the-right-to-read-... (Related: http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20069648-264/richard-stall... and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Right_to_Read)

Here's a lot more in the articles: http://stallman.org/#politics

Edit: IFSO: Richard Stallman: The Dangers of Software Patents; 2004-05-24 (transcript) http://www.ifso.ie/documents/rms-2004-05-24.html

Copyright and Globalization in the Age of Computer Networks - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation (FSF) https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/copyright-and-globalization.h...

2nd edit: You are a Terrorist (Du bist Terrorist) German, English Subtitles - YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdIA0jeW-24

pg3• 15 years ago

Can you give me some examples of specific predictions he made that you feel are most prescient?

jbermudes• 15 years ago

While not a specific claim to prediction of form X will happen in the year Y, it is a bit unsettling how since its original publication in 1997, RMS's "Right to Read" [1] has almost served as a playbook for the intellectual property lobby (1998's DMCA + UEFI's Secure Boot, trusted computing, etc). especially in light of the author's notes [1] that demonstrate that the laws required to create that dystopia are either available in some form already or have been proposed in the past, or are actively being worked on (SOPA, Protect-IP).

Ultimately it's not one particular statement that is eye-opening, but rather taking a holistic view of how the landscape of law and the aspects of what general-purpose computers (and programmers) can do and how that will continue to step on more and more industries' toes as pointed out by Cory Doctorow [2].

It's not so much that he's some sort of prophet as it is the unfortunate fact that his paranoia is increasingly justifiable with every new law creating new IP restrictions and laws dealing with civil liberties (PATRIOT, NDAA, etc). It's a self-perpetuating negative feedback loop.

[1] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html [2] http://lwn.net/Articles/473794/

trotsky3• 15 years ago

When he was vocally making the rounds at USENIX in the mid 80's telling everyone that soon you'd be able to get UNIX with source code for free instead of paying AT&T five figures I don't know anyone who thought he would pull it off and there were a lot of jokes.

Even though his project got bogged down lots of other activity sprang up. BSD dropped some code in '89 and then things went crazy in the early 90's.

I'm sure you meant about security, though. I doubt the blog spammer had anything in mind, he was pretty uninformed on the subject.

praptak• 15 years ago

I do not believe that the article was about specific predictions and maybe not even about predictions at all. The main thesis of the article was that he was right, not that he is prescient.

Stallman's position has always been that it is bad for you not to have full control over the software you run. This is admittedly not very specific but I do not think it needs to be. It is a political view after all, not a scientifically verifiable hypothesis.

The article enumerates some cases of that badness which were not present when Stallman started his movement but are present now. That does not make him a prophet - it is just some new evidence that supports his views.

trotsky3• 15 years ago

This is why you should support Android (not Google, but Android), even if you prefer the iPhone. [...] There's going to be a point where being Free/open is no longer a fun perk, but a necessity.

Stallman on Android: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/android-and-users-freedom.htm...

hnsmurf• 15 years ago

Just because you're paranoid/doesn't mean they're not after you.

desireco422• 15 years ago

I can't like this enough

gonzo• 15 years ago

This whole "Stallman doesn't carry a phone" thing is BS.

I spent a couple days with him in Hawaii. He most definitely has a cell phone.

bennyboy• 15 years ago

And don't talk about his laptop, how nowadays you can still use that kind of laptop?!

aquanext• 15 years ago

Sorry, but the part about picking Android over iPhone is just bullshit. Android is totally open source and it still came preloaded with Carrier IQ on it. I agree with the sentiment, but let's not be stupid, okay?

Cieplak• 15 years ago

To what extent can utilities like DTrace make proprietary software free? I know this is kind of a broad question, but can we detect hidden functionality in proprietary software without fully reverse-engineering it?

tessellated• 15 years ago

'Richard Stallman Was Right All Along' Is this really news anymore?

antoinevg• 15 years ago

Excerpted from Volume 43 of How To Boil Frogs by P. Latanna:

  *ribbit*

  To be sure the water is warmer this year but 
  surely it is only 9.943 degrees hotter and not 
  10 degrees like the author claims.

  *ribbit*

Mordor• 15 years ago

People latch onto the word 'terrorist' and think it doesn't apply to them, but we are all 'terrorists' in one way or other because our thoughts and actions do not completely submit to the state. Indeed this is never possible.

dmoney• 15 years ago

I can't find a news article saying that NDAA has been used to detain Occupy protesters, only that Occupy protesters have protested NDAA and some were arrested for failing to leave when ordered.

Tharkun• 15 years ago

Invoking Godwin's Law.

Saying Stallman "was right all along", just because he's not completely wrong all the time, is a bit like saying "hitler was right all along". Complete and utter bullcrap.

Stallman is a tit. Being an unwashed dick is his god given right, I won't dispute that. In spite of his undoubtedly good intentions, however, the man has such a poor image that he's done "his" FOSS cause more harm than good. He should go away. Or at least shut up.

zeruch• 15 years ago

Very few people actually dispute the crux of most of his arguments (at least those that have more than a surface awareness), but his dogmatism and often shrill OCD about slapping the GNU-prefix on things and poor social and personal hygiene have resulted in an image of a wildly paranoid crank which has made it easy to write him off casually by many of those who should be listening to him.

BiosElement• 15 years ago

And I predict everyone on this planet will die at some point in time!

... ...

I guess that means I was right all along!

jimmeh2• 15 years ago

I've often thought that Stallman was too prickly as spokesman or organisational leader, but I've never regarded him as being too extreme from a free software, ideological perspective. His thinking along those lines has always been meticulously careful and he generally sought out and found extremely competent legal advise. His basic mode of argumentation is to point out various legal exploits and note that there was no good reason to assume that government and industry won't abuse them if given the right set of circumstances.

It's a mystery why every ten years we have to have this discussion about whether we've entered a new age of ethical business and responsible government, where we somehow think that human nature and human organisations have changed permanently (through technological innovation!) in some egalitarian way.

eddyweb• 15 years ago

I love what Bob Dylan said in a song "...instead of learning to live, they are learning to die". That really summed it up for me

Shorel• 15 years ago

Of course he is right when he writes about fundamental issues. He's very smart and knows the implications of laws and licenses.

However, he allows no room for dissent, no transition path, no concessions for the real world. His followers are the same.

For this reason, I will never use the GPL for any of my projects (I prefer wxWidgets and MIT licenses).

Richard Stallman Was Right All Along

Related Stories