Richard Stallman: "What Stands in the Way of Digital Freedom?"

[Kyle Jacob Biodrowski]

Read this before watching the video:

For clarity, Stallman uses "Free" to mean freedom, not free stuff. As Stallman says, think freedom, not free beer. When he's talking about monetarily free software, he says "gratis". He explains this in a later part of the video.

I could have sworn OL had a technology section, perhaps I just imagined it. This video is a bit long, so watch it at your own leisure.

Anyway, I wanted to share this here and, perhaps, gain a bit more insight on Stallman's attitude toward free software vs. proprietary software. Stallman makes the claim that people either rule their software or their software rules them, the two models of software use that are conducive to this are, respectively, free software and proprietary software. Free software allows people to rule the software while proprietary leaves the user open to being ruled by the software's creator.

He also addresses a misconception people have about Free Software Movement. Many people think the movement is against paid-for products. Stallman points out that paid-for software isn't necessarily "unfree" and monetarily free software isn't necessarily free (per the Free Software Movement's definition). WinRAR is monetarily free, however, it isn't considered to be free software since it isn't modifiable by the user.

Stallman lists the requirements a piece of software must meet before being considered free (as per the FSMs definition).

To be considered free, the software must be:

1. Able to be run by the user in any way the user wishes.

2. Modifiable by the user.

3. Able to be copied and distributed at the user's discretion (given away or sold).

4. Able to be modified and distributed at the user's discretion (given away or sold).

If a program meets all of the above, even if it is a paid-for program, it is considered to be free. Stallman claims that if the program meets the above criteria, the user has complete control over the software and it is considered to be free.

In the age of electronic spies, it would seem that free software is the way to go if a person wants to protect his privacy. Stallman also makes the point that the owners of the software can easily insert malicious code into their programs, without the user knowing. He goes on to claim that if everyone has access to the source-code of a software, it would make the software more secure and safe. Since no single person has knowledge over all programming languages, assembly languages especially, it requires a collective effort in order to examine the software and ensure it has no malicious code.

He uses malware to mean code that spies on the user, tracks user data, and, generally, invades a user's privacy.

He slams Microsoft, and other companies, for violating all of the above rules, for spying on its users, and for censoring its users.

I won't spell out every detail of the video in this post because I want people to take some time to watch it. He's a rather endearing and interesting character.

In related videos, Stallman explains the history behind the FSM and the open-source movement. These are two separate movements with two separate goals and ideologies, though people often confuse them. The goal of the FSM is freedom from prying eyes and government force whereas the goal of the open-source movement is code quality.

Many Objectivist's would see the FSM as a threat to private property, specifically intellectual property, given the third criterion. However, I don't quite see it that way. Free software, even paid-for software, may be freely distributed or sold by the user. So, it would seem the creator doesn't really have any protection against his software being bought then resold without getting his due share. I don't really see any way around this. Stallman has addressed this in other videos where audience members asked him how they could make a living selling free software. Stallman informed them that they could offer software/tech support, crowdfund, take donations or, jokingly (hopefully), starve. He told them that anything is preferable to creating proprietary software, for the reasons mentioned above.

The reason I don't see the FSM as a threat to private property is that the movement isn't legislating any laws banning the creation and selling of proprietary software. They are offering an alternative to using proprietary software, in the name of freedom.

All things considered, Stallman's ideas seem Objectivist-friendly. It seems like a movement I can get behind.

By the way, I'm using WIndows, but I've considered jumping ship. In the past, I've experimented with various GNU/Linux distros. My favorite distros falling under Debian flavors. Contrary to popular belief, GNU/Linux distros are not difficult to use, depending largely on the distribution. GNU/Linux Mint is a popular flavor for people who want a user-friendly, full-fledged operating system with a great deal of hardware support.

Edit: In 2013, jts made an excellent post clarifying some "misconceptions" about GNU, Linux, Stallman, and his work. Here's the link to the post. Anyone who wants a bit more info about the GNU/Linux relationship should read it.

[Brant Gaede]

Good job of encouraging me to watch a long video. I'll try it.

But no free beer?

--Brant

I'm already disappointed

[Kyle Jacob Biodrowski]

Good job of encouraging me to watch a long video. I'll try it.

But no free beer?

--Brant

I'm already disappointed

Quite an accomplishment on my part considering I can't write for crap.

There is gratis, proprietary beer, but it tastes like an old copy of 1984.

[RobinReborn]

Stallman is a major ideologue who doesn't let practicality into his perspective. He's against Uber because he knows that the information collected them will be used to invade privacy.

[Kyle Jacob Biodrowski]

Stallman is a major ideologue who doesn't let practicality into his perspective. He's against Uber because he knows that the information collected them will be used to invade privacy.

Nothing necessarily wrong with being an ideologue. Nothing necessarily right with being practical. If being practical means forfeiting your information to some company, what does being practical serve? Transportation, of course. But there's always a trade-off. Stallman has chosen to sacrifice convenience for security, whereas Uber clients would do the inverse. It's his choice and I can't say he made an imprudent choice.

[syrakusos]

Thanks! I have been on board with this for decades. Your summary is better than I could have done - and written better than Richard Stallman speaks it, though, of course, he is always compelling.

You are right, that Objectivists dislike the FSM for all the wrong reasons. Most misunderstand the word "free". Beyond that, they believe that you have a right to control the licensing of your work. I agree. You also have the right to be a Fundamentalist Christian. Your "right" is not the topic here. Your self-interest is.

(I decoded your ASCII sigline when I first noticed it a few months back. Have you seen my Fortune Cookie?)

[Kyle Jacob Biodrowski]

Thanks! I have been on board with this for decades. Your summary is better than I could have done - and written better than Richard Stallman speaks it, though, of course, he is always compelling.

You are right, that Objectivists dislike the FSM for all the wrong reasons. Most misunderstand the word "free". Beyond that, they believe that you have a right to control the licensing of your work. I agree. You also have the right to be a Fundamentalist Christian. Your "right" is not the topic here. Your self-interest is.

(I decoded your ASCII sigline when I first noticed it a few months back. Have you seen my Fortune Cookie?)

You've been on board with the FSM? What have you done for the movement, if you don't mind me asking. I'm looking for ideas on how I can contribute, though, they do have an entire webpage dedicated to how people can help the movement. In the past, I've bought stuff from their store and I've helped debug C code in free software, though, my help was minimal since I only have a modest understanding of the C language.

Perhaps the biggest way a person could help the FSM is to get the word out. So few people know of operating systems outside of Windows and OS X, and even fewer people know of the FSM. My GNU shirt has raised a few eyebrows from curious people. When they ask, I do my best to explain what GNU is and what the FSM is, but I ain't so good with the verbal communication. After the conversation is finished, most people walk away with the idea that there is more out there than Windows and OS X; it's a start.

I'm not sure if I've seen your Fortune Cookie, but if it's anything like other fortune cookies, I've probably seen it.

[Jules Troy]

My first OS was Redhat 6.1, then I tried Caldara.

I used to use GIMP a lot and had a version of Blender for 3d modeling.

Buttttt all the programs I wanted to use where windows or MAC based and winwine was too clunky so I went the windows way. I really loved how easy it was to make linux secure though as well as how resource friendly/smooth running it is.

[merjet]

I'm sympathetic to his complaints about malware and snooping.

Many Objectivist's would see the FSM as a threat to private property, specifically intellectual property, given the third criterion. However, I don't quite see it that way. Free software, even paid-for software, may be freely distributed or sold by the user. So, it would seem the creator doesn't really have any protection against his software being bought then resold without getting his due share.

Thus proprietary software. The issue is analogous to copywrite and patent. Suppose somebody or a firm spends numerous hours and dollars programming something new and could fetch lots of money from other people using it. Typically the developer would not make the source code available and m-free (modifiable) to users who bought it. In other words, it's proprietary software. This prevents a buyer from modifying the source code, treating it as his/her/its own product and reselling it for money. Even if a buyer could modify the source code and distribute it to others for free (gratis), that would cut into revenues of the original author of the software. Of course, advocates of m-free software like Stallman presumably are against modifying and reselling.

There is some software that allows a user to modify its functionality in a limited way without the entire source code being available to the user. It is a lot of extra work to make such a program.

There are further practical problems with m-free code. Suppose somebody who has made and sold software gives users/buyers access to the source code, and users modify it for their own ends. Suppose further the original author now wants to make a new release with more and improved features. The modifications a user has made might be easily transferrable to the new release, but far more likely that is not the case and a significant amount of work is needed. Maybe an extensive amount, such as if the new release is in a different programming language or even a new version of the same language.

[Brant Gaede]

Free software: there is no such thing. Everything costs something. There are no exceptions. Once this is acknowledged rational discussion can proceed.

--Brant

see that bar of gold lying in the road?--it costs something to stop and pick it up and maybe more than you can imagine (it also costs you something to ignore it and go on your way--why?--because everything costs something, if only brain space)

[merjet]

I have an account with Fidelity Investments. I hope Fidelity never uses m-free software. I don't want people in general to be free to modify Fidelity's software and help themselves to my assets. I want Fidelity to "subjugate" users' freedom in order to protect my assets. Ditto where I bank. Maybe Stallman doesn't intend that sort of freedom, but it isn't clear where he draws the line.

Free software: there is no such thing. Everything costs something.

LibreOffice is a free, open source suite of spreadsheets, etc. It's free to you in the sense that you can use it w/o paying anyone. Of course, somebody spent time and money to develop it and somebody spends time and money to maintain it.

[Kyle Jacob Biodrowski]

Free software: there is no such thing. Everything costs something. There are no exceptions. Once this is acknowledged rational discussion can proceed.

--Brant

see that bar of gold lying in the road?--it costs something to stop and pick it up and maybe more than you can imagine (it also costs you something to ignore it and go on your way--why?--because everything costs something, if only brain space)

When Stallman uses the word "free", he isn't talking about price or even cost. He's talking about freedom. To Stallman, a piece of software is conducive to freedom when it is:

1. Able to be run by the user in any way the user sees fit.

2. Modifiable by the user (being able to view the source code is a prerequisite to this)

3. Able to freely distribute copies of the software.

4. Able to freely distribute modified copies of the software.

When the user of the software can view a piece of software's source code, he can verify whether the software is violating any portion of the user's privacy.

When a piece of software meets all of the above requirements, it is considered "free".

In the video, Stallman makes the point that monetarily free software isn't necessarily free (as in freedom) and paid-for software isn't necessarily unfree (as in freedom).

LibreOffice is a free, open source suite of spreadsheets, etc. It's free to you in the sense that you can use it w/o paying anyone.

This isn't how Stallman uses the word "free". See above explanation.

Merlin,

A person can't just modify a piece of software and peak at your assets. They would need to modify it, distribute it, and have Fidelity users download and run it. Just don't download software from any site other than Fidelity, which goes without saying.

[syrakusos]

Thanks! I have been on board with this for decades. ...

You've been on board with the FSM? What have you done for the movement ...

Sorry to be late with this, and I apologize if I overstated my case. All I meant was that I have known about Stallman and the OSF for many years, and, like you, have told people what it is, and is not. "Free" does not (necessarily) mean "no pay."

For myself, I have the GPG public key crypto on my computer and I sent them $25 for it. My wife is the real computerist here and she runs Kali Linux on her test network. We both have Wireshark, and we took a class in it a couple of years ago. She also has Metasploit, BeEF, and a few others. I do not know which she has sent in money for. I am pretty sure that she has not posted any of her own updates, patches, etc.

I am a lot freer with my money than she is with hers. On the Galt's Gulch board, one of the regulars touted Axanar, a new Star Trek fan movie now in production. I watched their trailer, Prelude to Axanar, and then I sent them $100. (Of course, I was a contributor to AS3. My daughter and I got a line credit at the end.) I just joined the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers for $30. I could go on. The point is that if I use "free" software, I pay for it. But, no, I do not modify it, post it to GitHub, or anything like that. I am a technical writer, not a devops person.

And I also knew about Richard Stallman from the old WELL: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link. I was active there, in the 80s and 90s, but their being taken over by Salon left me completely alienated. Whereas before, at least some semblance of libertarianism was evident, since Salon, the mainstream there pretty much never met a government program they did not like. I must confess, though, that I feel special for having heard about Barack Obama in 2006. I even voted for him in 2008, though not in 2012, of course.

[Kyle Jacob Biodrowski]

My first OS was Redhat 6.1, then I tried Caldara.

I used to use GIMP a lot and had a version of Blender for 3d modeling.

Buttttt all the programs I wanted to use where windows or MAC based and winwine was too clunky so I went the windows way. I really loved how easy it was to make linux secure though as well as how resource friendly/smooth running it is.

I've never used RedHat, though, I'll likely give it a shot one day. As for switching to Windows, you could always dual-boot. No need to choose one OS over the other. I have multiple OSs installed on my desktop PC. Virtual machines, too, are an option, though, I find that virtual machines don't often make the best use of existing hardware. It's a shame there aren't more rendering and design programs for the Linux distros, that may change in the future.

Thanks! I have been on board with this for decades. ...

You've been on board with the FSM? What have you done for the movement ...

Sorry to be late with this, and I apologize if I overstated my case. All I meant was that I have known about Stallman and the OSF for many years, and, like you, have told people what it is, and is not. "Free" does not (necessarily) mean "no pay."

For myself, I have the GPG public key crypto on my computer and I sent them $25 for it. My wife is the real computerist here and she runs Kali Linux on her test network. We both have Wireshark, and we took a class in it a couple of years ago. She also has Metasploit, BeEF, and a few others. I do not know which she has sent in money for. I am pretty sure that she has not posted any of her own updates, patches, etc.

I am a lot freer with my money than she is with hers. On the Galt's Gulch board, one of the regulars touted Axanar, a new Star Trek fan movie now in production. I watched their trailer, Prelude to Axanar, and then I sent them $100. (Of course, I was a contributor to AS3. My daughter and I got a line credit at the end.) I just joined the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers for $30. I could go on. The point is that if I use "free" software, I pay for it. But, no, I do not modify it, post it to GitHub, or anything like that. I am a technical writer, not a devops person.

And I also knew about Richard Stallman from the old WELL: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link. I was active there, in the 80s and 90s, but their being taken over by Salon left me completely alienated. Whereas before, at least some semblance of libertarianism was evident, since Salon, the mainstream there pretty much never met a government program they did not like. I must confess, though, that I feel special for having heard about Barack Obama in 2006. I even voted for him in 2008, though not in 2012, of course.

Neat. I've never donated money, but I've bought GNU/Linux merchandise in the past. I love buying GNU/Linux-related stickers. I just can't get enough of those stickers. They raise a few eyebrows and they're great conversation starters.

I'm a fan of the Debian distro family and I've been playing with Kali quite a lot lately to familiarize myself with some common pentesting tools. Just today, I unearthed an old Dell Latitude D620 laptop from my hardware crypt. Its default operating system in Windows XP, however, I can live boot Kali on it whenever I feel like putting in a bit of learning. In fact, the laptop runs Kali better than it runs XP, which I found surprising. Yep, it's getting a sticker.

[Jules Troy]

I had duel boot for a while.

[merjet]

Merlin,

A person can't just modify a piece of software and peak at your assets. They would need to modify it, distribute it, and have Fidelity users download and run it. Just don't download software from any site other than Fidelity, which goes without saying.

My point was that open-source software would likely make it easier for hackers and others to gain access to my assets.

A person with an account with Fidelity doesn't need to download anything from Fidelity.

[Brant Gaede]

Merlin,

A person can't just modify a piece of software and peak at your assets. They would need to modify it, distribute it, and have Fidelity users download and run it. Just don't download software from any site other than Fidelity, which goes without saying.

My point was that open-source software would likely make it easier for hackers and others to gain access to my assets.

A person with an account with Fidelity doesn't need to download anything from Fidelity.

All assets held electronically are not yours. They are an asset that is a claim on those assets. That asset is also in electronic form. Even that asset could disappear with the push of a button. Decades ago someone wrote a phoney autobiography of Howard Hughes. He had a 1.2 million dollar brokerage account. The Feds seized it. It wasn't any romantic gone with the wind; it was gone with the button.

--Brant

if all your electronic "assets" were to disappear today, how would it be for you tomorrow?

[duncan_bayne]

Merlin,

A person can't just modify a piece of software and peak at your assets. They would need to modify it, distribute it, and have Fidelity users download and run it. Just don't download software from any site other than Fidelity, which goes without saying.

My point was that open-source software would likely make it easier for hackers and others to gain access to my assets.

A person with an account with Fidelity doesn't need to download anything from Fidelity.

Actually, it's usually the opposite: in order to release the code to a program, its authors must be fairly confident in the inherent security of the program. They can't rely upon people simply failing to notice the security holes (known derisively as 'security through obscurity').

Also, if you're running proprietary software, you're at the mercy of the owners for a fix. If they go broke, or don't care, or don't fix it properly, then that's your bad luck. In the case of open source software, though, you can always fix it yourself or pay someone to do likewise.

There's some confusion about terminology on this thread. In the hopes of clearing it up:

• Free Software: software that respects the freedom of the user of the software to "run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software".
• Open source software: software for which the source code is available to the public.
• Proprietary software: also known as closed-source, this is software for which the source code is not available to the public.

An example of Free Software is the Linux kernel. The source code is available to the public, and if you distribute a modified version, you must also make your modified source code available under the same terms. You can't derive proprietary software from Free Software because of this.

An example of open source software is el-get, a package management tool for the Emacs editor. The source code is available to the public, and you may do what you want with it. If you want to derive your own version and release it as proprietary software, you may.

An example of proprietary software is iTunes. The source code is not available, and you most certainly may not freely use, distribute or modify it. You may be sued, face jail time, or both if you reverse-engineer it to try to figure out what it's doing, let alone release a derivative version.

[merjet]

Actually, it's usually the opposite: in order to release the code to a program, its authors must be fairly confident in the inherent security of the program. They can't rely upon people simply failing to notice the security holes (known derisively as 'security through obscurity').

Also, if you're running proprietary software, you're at the mercy of the owners for a fix. If they go broke, or don't care, or don't fix it properly, then that's your bad luck. In the case of open source software, though, you can always fix it yourself or pay someone to do likewise.

I don't have experience with coding for security, so your claim might be true. I am somewhat skeptical, though. The author having confidence does not assure no security holes. Modifying authors may not be as careful as originating authors.

Security through obscurity. having done quite a bit of programming in APL during my career.

True for proprietary software if the owner and user are not the same, but not if they are the same.

[duncan_bayne]

I don't have experience with coding for security, so your claim might be true. I am somewhat skeptical, though. The author having confidence does not assure no security holes. Modifying authors may not be as careful as originating authors.

Security through obscurity having done quite a bit of programming in APL during my career.

True for proprietary software if the owner and user are not the same, but not if they are the same.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-OjTPj7K54y

"... and I basically hate hieroglyphs, so I won't use APL."

Seriously, I have no first-hand experience of APL, and would be interested to know what you think are its strengths and weaknesses.

Talking of confidence was loose language on my part. What I meant by that was: in order to safely release the source code to a program that is security-sensitive, the security cannot rely upon attackers having restricted knowledge of the internal workings of the software. It must be actually secure by design.

Relatedly, almost all software must be coded for security these days, as almost everyone uses data obtained over networks from untrusted sources. Even seemingly innocent MIDI music files have been used to break into systems.

Agreed. re. owner and user. If its your system and you own the code, you will of course enjoy some of the benefits of open source software. Not all of them though; the benefits of a large community of developers and users are many.

[merjet]

Seriously, I have no first-hand experience of APL, and would be interested to know what you think are its strengths and weaknesses.

APL’s power is with mathematics, and it makes heavy use of matrices. Writing code in it can be an extremely fast. There is more about this on Wikipedia. Tasks that require loops in other languages can be written in one line of APL. Indeed, two (or more) different matrices can be built with one line of code because APL allows multiple assignments on one line. From a multidimensional matrix, say 2-dim, it is extremely easy to grab one row or column. There are some code snippets on the Wikipedia page which indicate APL’s compactness.

One of the most important reasons why APL is so productive is that it allows people who have great ideas but are not IT professionals to get deeply involved in the software development process, sometimes even writing entire applications themselves. Not only do these people have even less understanding of professional software development techniques and tools, including libraries – they care even less than many APL developers about standards and interfaces. The important thing is calculating the value of that portfolio or price of that insurance premium – not whether we can produce a nice data entry form for the parameters, adhere to good (or at least common) GUI principles, or whether we can save the data in an SQL database or as XML. http://archive.vector.org.uk/art10004590

This quote is from the Journal of the British APL Association. APL’s popularity in the USA declined sharply with the rise of PCs, but not in Europe.

The other language I’ve used with the most similarity to APL is MATLAB. A big difference is that MATLAB uses English words rather than Greek symbols.

Drawbacks? It requires a special keyboard. It’s very hard to understand another person’s code, especially if the author is disinclined to inserting comment statements (like most authors are because it takes more time). It’s hard enough understanding your own code 3 months after writing it and not working with it in the interim!

[duncan_bayne]

Thanks for the reply - sounds (in terms of its suitability to matrix manipulation) a little like R.

I'm amazed to discover a language that requires a custom keyboard ... I use a (very lightly modified) Unicomp Model-M derivative at home, but the only real changes are cosmetic.


Meta, Super, Hyper keys on my Unicomp On-The-Ball by Duncan Bayne, on Flickr