One thing that bothers me about Richard Stallman
Hello guys.
Ok, look, first, I want to say that I have a great respect for Richard Stallman, mainly for his work on free software. I am not attacking him, or anything, I am merely raising a question (one I believe is valid).
I have been reading his website and something caught my attention. He says that he does not use a cellphone, he does not use a shopping card, he is carefull when he uses the internet... All to protect his privacy. BUT he goes on to say that:
" However, I don't mind using someone else's card or number once in a while, to avoid the extra charge for not using a card. That doesn't track me. "
"When I need to call someone, I ask someone nearby to let me make a call. If I use someone else's cell phone, that doesn't give Big Brother any information about me."
And other such statements. Well, what bothers me is that he says "you should not use a cellphone" but he has no problem using a cellphone of someone near him! It's almost like "Hey, I live in this great superior way, but only can do so because you guys let me borrow your evil gadgets when I need! You should be like me, and only use someone else's phone, at least until you convince the person not to use a phone."
I don't know, I think it shouldn't be this way, I have the feeling that if I say "I live this way because it's the better way" I should encourage others to do the same and not use their stuff to gain an advantage for myself in my way of living.
I just wanted to share it with you guys, and again I say that everyone should take some time to listen to his speeches, even if you disagree with him (I sometimes do) it's still good to hear his opinion at least it makes you think about things. But I feel that the way he presents his life is almost like... well, what I wrote above "I live in a superior way thanks to the fact that everyone else does not".
Any thoughts?
I don't believe Stallman has ever said he lives in a way that's superior to anyone else.
Indeed, and I suspect he would reject any such assertion if someone were to say that to him.
I am a member!
Oh of course not, such a holier-than-thou,you-no-freedom-suckers attitude would never occur anywhere near that man..
Cause it's not like he refers to anyone not fully onboard his particular freedom train as "worse than suckers" or anything.
Slightly more OT though.
This thread sounds scarily like a setup for debating the proper intepretations of scripture or something.
Is it that important to anyone what Stallman does or doesn't do, or in what semi-douchy way he may or may not do it? xD
And anyway, everybody likes the freedom to have a double standard here and there.
"Any thoughts?"
I think you're mischaracterizing it. "I ask someone nearby to let me make a call" could include, for example, their home telephone if he's staying there. So, it's not predicated on having access to "evil gadgets" as you put it. Even if every single cell phone in the world disappeared tomorrow, RMS's life would continue on just fine.
The same thought also occured to me some time ago.
You know, I have learned to appreciate *some* aspects of a person while remaining critical on others.
I appreciate rms very much, but I don't support many of the things he does.
On 11/12/13 09:24, gnuser wrote:
> And other such statements. Well, what bothers me is that he says "you
> should not use a cellphone" but he has no problem using a cellphone
> of someone near him! It's almost like "Hey, I live in this great
> superior way, but only can do so because you guys let me borrow your
> evil gadgets when I need! You should be like me, and only use someone
> else's phone, at least until you convince the person not to use a
> phone."
I would guess that RMS would probably try to use a public telephone box
if possible, and maybe borrow someone else's cellphone as a last resort.
Remember: the decline of public telephones is a direct result of the use
of mobile phones. If Stallman could convince people on a larger scale to
stop using cellphones, maybe over time public telephones would become
more widespread again and there would be no need to do this.
I think RMS is just being pragmatic by using other people's mobile
phones when he needs to.
Andrew.
I don't think he has ever used that expression "superior", but let's be honest, each person lives in the way that he thinks is best and when one person goes to such great lenghts to live in a specific way, which is different from everyone else, we might say that he thinks that is the correct way to live and therefore it bring the idea of "superior". But feel free to rephrase it into "I live in a better way..."
Still, I think it's important to think, each one of us... If we were to stop using a cellphone, saying that it hurt our privacy, wouldn't it be a little "weird" to ask them to let us use it once in a while?? Be honest, people would say "lol, yeah sure, because you care about privacy but not about my phone bill AHHAHAHAH, here take it and lose your attitude".
While I am not saying that he is wrong in many of his views (his writings actually made me think more about human rights and companies activities) I think he loses some credibility when he actually takes advantage of "immoral" things as long as they don't affect him.
Of course, I would first think "Do I take advantage of those things?" "Do I give so much to the community like he has done over his life?" "Do I have any useful suggestion to give him?"
I only wanted to open some debate here about this... or rather, about one man who we follow for his work on free software and should consider also other parts of his life. Because, he at least (different from other guys on the net) is totally open about his own life. That is good, but it should bring us to a debate, so we can actually learn something from that openness.
Thanks to everyone who has commented so far.
"I think he loses some credibility when he actually takes advantage of "immoral" things as long as they don't affect him."
AFAIK he has not described using a cell phone in and of itself with that word.
You are being picky with words, but here is the copy of his own page
"Cellular Phones
I see that cellular phones are very convenient. I would have got one, if not for certain reprehensible things about them.
Cell phones tracking and surveillance devices. They all enable the phone system to record where the user goes, and many (perhaps all) can be remotely converted into listening devices.
In addition, most of them are computers with nonfree software installed. Even if they don't allow the user to replace the software, someone else can replace it remotely. Since the software can be changed, we cannot regard it as equivalent to a circuit. A machine that allows installation of software is a computer, and computers should run free software.
Nearly every cell phone has a universal back door that allows remote conversion into a listening device. (See Murder in Samarkand, by Craig Murray, for an example.) This is as nasty as a device can get.
From the book Alone Together, by Sherry Turkle, I learned that portable phones make many people's lives oppressive, because they feel compelled to spend all day receiving and responding to text messages which interrupt everything else. Perhaps my decision to reject this convenience for its deep injustice has turned out best in terms of convenience as well.
When I need to call someone, I ask someone nearby to let me make a call. If I use someone else's cell phone, that doesn't give Big Brother any information about me."
So, you still think he does not borrow a cell phone from someone else??? -.^
If you say that it is not such a big deal, that's one thing. It's your opinion and it's a fine opinion if you truly think that. But to say he does not do it, it's just not reading what he wrote himself.
I am a member!
Stallman knows what he wants and why. More uncommon, he actually follows up--and uncomfortable or not--does what he needs to do to live consistently with what he believes.
That isn't fashionable nowadays, most people would not or could not do what he does. That doesn't make him superior or special as what he does is by his own choice. However if one cannot or will not live respecting their own beliefs, they may feel a sort of failure or an inferiority and have trouble with those who do. They may fault a belief itself, or even the beliefs of others.
I am not implying anyone is inferior, the mind plays tricks on people, or maybe it's the devil.
I have thought this way about Stallman, but more on the lines of freedom in general. A lot of his politics seem to be anti-freedom. Sometimes I feel like he believes in freedom only as far as it suits himself, but would be willing to see it taken away from others if it goes against his views...
I try to see past that because of all the good he has done to advance freedom in software though... I have actually been meaning to e-mail him to see if he would be interested in a conversation about it.
I don't think there's anything inconsistent in those opinions. Those people whose "evil gadgets" he might borrow have accepted and embraced the related spying. Of course if one is dirt poor, it's hard to say no even to Faustian bargains. Actually having somebody else occasionally use your tracking devices might help throw off the trackers.
Do you really expect that most people stop using those things? And if they did, the world would still turn, just like it did before the advent of either of those things. Also nowhere does he say borrowing the "evil gadgets" is a prerequisite for his way of life.
I think this kind of behavior provides a wonderful opportunity to explain why one doesn't like these things. Maybe it will open somebody's eyes in the process or at least make them think about it. And the lack of public thought is exactly what enables this regime of no-privacy.
I think Grimlok might be the person here who actually has given it the best thought (even better than mine). By accepting that RMS might not be "perfect" but still he has done a lot of work for the free software world, Grimlok's reply actually appeal to me as a very sensitive and wise way of looking at things.
After all, RMS is not a prophet, he is a man, and we should only take his opinions like we take everyone else's opinions. Take in consideration, but make our own mind.
Of course, given the fact that he is a "popular person" in the computer world, his opinions actually carry some weight (one good or bad statement could help or hurt the way people look at free software for example). In that regard, I think he should probably NOT take advantage of "immoral" things as long as they don't affect him personally. Again only my opinion, but that's the way I see it.
Michał Masłowski comment was also interesting. For me, BSD is actually the most "free license" because it gives you the freedom to do as you wish. Can it be used for enslaving of other people? Yes, but in the moment it's in your hands you actually have more freedom than with GPL. If we lived in community, instead of society, I would probably accept ONLY the GPL license. But given the fact that we live in society, I think BSD is a more "realistic" approach. Of course, GPL has done GREEEEAAAT over the many years it has existed, so, maybe I am wrong thinking this way :P
I think my "like" for BSD licenses, come from the fact that I understand the need for a license different from GPL when it comes to "free hardware" or "open source hardware", something that we desperately need, but can only be achieved with a license that allows for commercial use (without hiding any information of course).
In the end, I think I look at RMS the same way FSF looks at Debian. He does a lot of good, and thank God he exists, but he is not perfect and I would rather take his thoughts and work on top of them before presenting them to other people, rather than just "provide a link" to RMS homepage. And maybe it's for the better =)
Well, I thank everyone who commented on this thread, I only wanted to really hear other thoughts about this, and it gave me an opportunity to think about some other subjects. The admins might wanna close it now, since I think my original questions have been satisfied. Thanks again ;)
> Michał Masłowski comment was also interesting. For me, BSD is actually
> the most "free license" because it gives you the freedom to do as you
> wish. Can it be used for enslaving of other people? Yes, but in the
> moment it's in your hands you actually have more freedom than with
> GPL.
Unless making a nonfree program, practically the only additional
permission is to make derived works including code under some
GPL-incompatible licenses like the four clause BSD license. It is
useful in some specific projects, like BSD kernels (with much
GPL-incompatible code).
Copyleft leads to having more free software when other developers use
copyleft code instead of reimplementing it to make their works nonfree.
This is why its supporters don't consider permissively licensed software
more free.
I think the support for state regulation in RMS's political notes can be
similarly explained with this meaning of freedom.
> If we lived in community, instead of society, I would probably
> accept ONLY the GPL license. But given the fact that we live in
> society, I think BSD is a more "realistic" approach.
What is the difference between a community and a society?
> I think my "like" for BSD licenses, come from the fact that I
> understand the need for a license different from GPL when it comes to
> "free hardware" or "open source hardware", something that we
> desperately need, but can only be achieved with a license that allows
> for commercial use (without hiding any information of course).
GPL allows commercial use (like all free software licenses), there are
many businesses using, distributing and developing GPLed software
commercially. (No need to count the ones preventing users from changing
such software on their own devices here.)
Are there widely used GPL-incompatible licenses for hardware designs, or
is there a different reason for a different license for them? Or are
there patent issues?
(There are less opportunities for users to reprogram their hardware with
modified designs than software; nearly all FPGAs need nonfree tools.)
> In the end, I think I look at RMS the same way FSF looks at Debian. He
> does a lot of good, and thank God he exists, but he is not perfect and
> I would rather take his thoughts and work on top of them before
> presenting them to other people, rather than just "provide a link" to
> RMS homepage. And maybe it's for the better =)
I agree with his explanations of some issues and not others (like free
culture, works of opinion licensing or the existence of non-capitalist
stateless societies).
I am in a little hurry right now, but one thing I would like to give you an answer to is the difference between society and community.
While this is something that I have been thinking about for some time and have not yet figured the best way to express the whole thing clearly, the fundamental idea is that in a society you have different "classes" of people (like rich an poor), in a society you have business and commerce as fundamental parts of living. In a community you don't because everyone is equal to everyone and they all contribute something to the whole (that is the community) and they all live from the whole. I know that in a first looking at it, it seems like "evil communism" but that is not what I am trying to target at here. Of course, a community of "equal people" is always in danger of "one being more equal than other" and you have the book "Animal Farm" to read if you want to take a look at how easy it is to fall for that "mental trap" but I am trying to think of a community that REALLY works. You don't have to be poor and you don't have to be rich because if one "richness" comes up, it is freely available to all. And no one is poor because through the work of EVERYONE, everyone is feed and happy. So, of course, if we were to live in a community, there would be no need to be able to "sell" things, because commerce would not be the same as we have today. But in a society you need to, because you are expected to earn your own living, on your own and not as a part of the whole society. Ofcourse, if you read some newspapers you might think that we live in a "good society" and that everyone is "equal", but truth is, things are not like that. There are people who are privileged and live a rich life by oppressing other people who are poor and enslaved. A politician makes sure that the law says "politicians have these and these rights" because he himself will get gain from those rights. If those laws mean that other people will have to pay more taxes, he does not care. So, yeah, there are a few good people in society, but for the most part, the system of "society" is good at making divisions and putting people under the power of other people. That is not good, and we should be able to live in community. That would apply to software too.
" I know that in a first looking at it, it seems like "evil communism" but that is not what I am trying to target at here. "
Why not? You're describing many (sensible) communist ideas and why shouldn't we name it this way?
Under the flag of communism a countless number of crimes have been commited but this is true for christianity as well, and I would not hesitate to appreciate many christian ideas.
Capitalism is not the worst system on earth but it sure has many negative effects (you described some of them) and we should feel free to think of something better.
I think the main difference between Free Software and Communism is that software is easily copied, while physical objects are not. I believe in physical property, but not "Intellectual Property"[0], physical objects are scarce; only so many exist, while ideas (software, songs, etc.) can be copied infinitely.
[0] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid#IntellectualProperty
Anarcho-communists accept personal possession, they reject property that
isn't used by its owner and is made real only by state documents and
violence used to enforce it. It's more real than "intellectual
property" by being handled by one set of laws, unlike e.g. copyright and
patents restricting different things in different ways.
Scarcity isn't a reason for having both homeless people and empty homes
waiting for someone to pay to live in them. There are many artificial
reasons for scarcity, like property, copyright or patents.
I think we can find many similarities between free software and any
political philosophy. There are free software hackers that support
capitalism, RMS does.
(I don't know how state capitalism known from e.g. USSR handles this.
It's not communism.)
"Freedom" imposed on others is not freedom. Freedom is only freedom if you have a choice in the matter. Freedom to succeed, freedom to fail. So Communism, and Socialism do not lead to freedom, they only lead to oppression, history has proven this time and time again. We are seeing this in the United States. Everyone says that the U.S. is a Capitalist nation, but it isn't. I will agree with Stallman it is a Plutocracy. I disagree with him on the idea that Communistic/Socialistic government oversight fixes this. I say Communistic/Socialist because he holds himself as Progressive, and that is just a friendly way of saying the former. He calls the U.S. a democracy, it was never that. It was founded as a Constitutional Republic. Pure Capitalism is dead in the U.S. we have Crony Capitalism now led by greed, corruption, and want of power. Government in bed with Business. This is NOT what was intended by our framers.
So my problem is that he says all the right things about freedom as far as software is concerned, but why not politically? Again, that is a question for him, and not for here.
I believe that someone who makes code should be allowed to do with it as they please.
I also believe that people need to be informed that using programs that the code is not available, that is kept in secret takes away THEIR freedom. Because people are corrupt and greedy, and by not seeing that code, you don't know what is in the program you are using. For that I believe free software is essential. That is why I use it, tell people about it, and in the future tend on supporting it.
I'm not sure if this is what you meant, but copyleft doesn't force freedom onto someone else. A user of a GPL-licensed program can run the program the way they don't wish, not take the source code and compile it, not redistribute, etc. The GPL forces people to not force non-freedom onto someone else.
Proprietary software developers don't like to think of it this way, but that's what proprietary software does; it forces non-freedom onto someone else. The GPL just says you can't do that.
I was talking about "evil communism" vs "good communism" :P But yeah, it is similar to communism in a way.
I think that in a "community" GPL would be the perfect single license. In the society we live right now, I would have to say that licenses that allow you to take a free code and make changes and make your version a closed source program that gives you the possibility to sell it (to companies that don't mind using proprietary software) might actually be usable IN SOME CASES. Not always, of course, I still like the fact that GPL exists and think it's the best license, but in some cases (the BSD community is an example) it might be justified to use another license.
On 13/12/13 02:12, gnuser wrote:
> I was talking about "evil communism" vs "good communism" :P But
> yeah, it is similar to communism in a way.
The GPL is perhaps similar to communism if you believe software can be
property. If you read up on the history of copyright you should be able
to figure out the difference between some of the intentions behind
copyright and property.
The main differences between computers and the real world are that data
can be copied (practically) infinitely, things in the real world cannot
be copied so easily, and that we don't yet have the source code for the
real world. :-)
> I think that in a "community" GPL would be the perfect single
> license. In the society we live right now, I would have to say that
> licenses that allow you to take a free code and make changes and
> make your version a closed source program that gives you the
> possibility to sell it
If you understood the values of software freedom then the concept of
proprietary (freedom-denying) software would be unacceptable.
Of course, free software can be sold as well. The difference is that the
freedom to share copies makes selling free software a little more difficult.
Andrew.
"The GPL is perhaps similar to communism if you believe software can be property."
Before I agreed with the Free Software philosophy, I thought that Free Software was communism. The article "Misinterpreting Copyright—A Series of Errors" explains how ideas can't be property.
RMS is basically saying he would like someone else to take the fall for any actions that he makes using their cellphone. That includes the content of the phone call and the GPS location.
I am a member!
He knows the dangers of a cell phone (or a shopping card, or even non-free software), but he also knows the benefits, and believes that the dangers outweigh the benefits. However, using someone else's cell phone allows him the benefits without the drawbacks. It's a cute hack, really.
It's pragmatism more than anything else, I think. While he refuses to use or own any of those things, he realizes that not everyone will go along with him, so he'll take advantage of another person's cell phone (or whatever) instead of refusing it on pure ideological ground.
However, his life style isn't dependent on other people providing him with their cell phone. It's a convenience. I imagine most places he goes have land phones available for use if he needs a phone and no one in his vicinity can provide him one.