Linked by Linux Review on Tue 20th Mar 2012 17:07 UTC
GNU, GPL, Open Source It's been a while since we caught up with Stallman. But a couple months ago we took a look around at what's happening with law, politics and technology and realized that he maybe perhaps his extremism and paranoia were warranted all along. So when we were contacted by an Iranian Linux publication and asked if we would like to publish an English translation of a recent interview they had done with Stallman, I thought that it was a particularly rich opportunity.
Thread beginning with comment 511236
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Re:
by kurkosdr on Tue 20th Mar 2012 16:33 UTC
kurkosdr
Member since:
2011-04-11

IMO Stallman is partly responsible for the mess with DRM, user restrictions and software patents.

By lumping together reasonable demands (no DRM, no user restrictions, no soft patents etc) with unreasonable demands (all software should be "free"), he makes the reasonable demands sound unreasonable. In plain english, thanks to FSF, nowadays anyone who says how DRM is bad and how soft patents create more damage than benefit is quickly brushed off as a freetard who hates proprietary software by the opposite camp. Thanks a lot, FSF.

And don't get me started how Stallman pretends "free software" can't have DRM. I can release a DRMed DVD recorder firmware under a BSD license (the FSF approved one), and then TiVoize the device to prevent people from changing it. Sure, Stallman will whine how such software is not free, but since the license is FSF approved, i can claim otherwise.

Or how Stallman pretends all proprietary OSes must definately have some anti-user feature somewhere. Anything to advance the Free Software agenda (make all proprietary software disappear or turned "free", never mind the only to do this is by rewriting the whole copyright law, because most sane people think proprietary software is ethical and don't have a problem using it).

Browser: Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 2.2.2; el-gr; LG-P990 Build/FRG83G) AppleWebKit/533.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile Safari/533.1 MMS/LG-Android-MMS-V1.0/1.2

Reply Score: -2

RE: Re:
by shmerl on Tue 20th Mar 2012 16:55 in reply to "Re:"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

Brushed off by whom? All sane engineers and experts agree that software patents are totally broken and hurt the technology. And that DRM is unethical as well as ineffective. On the other hand money hungry monopolists and crooks will always try brush off anything that stands in their way, no matter Stallman or not.

Edited 2012-03-20 16:58 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 11

RE[2]: Re:
by galvanash on Wed 21st Mar 2012 00:45 in reply to "RE: Re:"
galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

And that DRM is unethical as well as ineffective.


DRM is like a gun... almost exactly like a gun. The old saying is "guns don't kill people, people kill people". Sure, it is corny and the phrase is more often used just to make stupid political points - but it IS true.

On the other hand, going around killing people with a knife or club is a different thing entirely - there is no denying that if you eliminate guns murder becomes a significantly different proposition.

On the other other hand... Whether people like it or not, killing people is sometimes justified - a world without guns is a fairytale - war is part of the human condition.

My point is only that DRM isn't unethical from a technology point of view. DRM fundamentally boils down any technology used to retain control of how data can be used and copied. There are perfectly ethical uses for such technology (assuming you can actually make it work effectively - which as you point out is borderline impossible if the demand to defeat it is high enough).

The problem I see with DRM (at least when applied to the music industry) is they are trying to use the technology to impart physical attributes on something that isn't physical anymore. The idea of using technology to ensure that there is only one copy of something in existence is pretty stupid when you consider that the primary attraction of digital media is the ease of which it can be manipulated for different uses. The _reason_ people like digital media (as opposed to a CD or tape) is because it lets them use it all over the place any way they like...

In short I would say the biggest blunder in the history of music was the "problem" of DRM being ineffective. I actually wish it was 100% effective. Why? Because 100% effective DRM would represent the end of the "big label" music industry - they would DRM themselves to death quite quickly...

As things are now there is no real rebellion against the industry - it is much easier to just break their guns and ignore them. Effective DRM would make the general public realize how much they don't want to license music, they want to buy it. We will never reach the point of being able to buy music until this game gets played out completely.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Re:
by Sodki on Tue 20th Mar 2012 17:10 in reply to "Re:"
Sodki Member since:
2005-11-10

And don't get me started how Stallman pretends "free software" can't have DRM. I can release a DRMed DVD recorder firmware under a BSD license (the FSF approved one), and then TiVoize the device to prevent people from changing it. Sure, Stallman will whine how such software is not free, but since the license is FSF approved, i can claim otherwise.


GPLv2, a free software license that Stallman wrote, can be tivoized. He's not pretending anything. The next license that he wrote, prevents that. I really don't know where you are trying to get here.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: Re:
by lucas_maximus on Tue 20th Mar 2012 17:22 in reply to "RE: Re:"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

However the GPLv3 is not compatible with lots of projects that aren't GPL and that is why Torvolds probably won't move to it ...

GPL is quite a restrictive License if you are a developer.

Reply Parent Score: 0