zlacker

It's possible to believe both that Stallman is over the top and that stuff like this Google action is bad, and even to be right on both. It's even easier to believe that Stallman has had some good ideas but is still a deeply flawed human being, and has also incidentally not been the most effective advocate for his own ideals.

>>BrenBa+(OP)
It is possible, sure, but I have a feeling it goes unrecognized how prophetic and precise his concerns were, and that this is very similar to his original issue with the closed-source printer software he was not allowed to fix, and he does not get credit for his predictions, as people simply pass by, and not connect it to the Free Software issue, when issues like this happen; meanwhile he takes all the downsides of being brash and anti-corporate, which is taken advantage of by the Corporate Open Source crowd.

>>BrenBa+(OP)
Who is doing a better job?

Because I see A LOT of “open source” advocates these days, and more and more “source available”.

But the old school Free Software hippies(that started with BSD, NOT GNU, IMNHO) are slowly dying out and being replaced with?

>>BrenBa+(OP)
It's easy to piss on the individual.

Ask yourself how come free software is everywhere, with licenses for various stuff neatly tucked away out of sight unless you're trying to find it, not to mention all the giant clusters of Linux machines in data centers running Samba, PostgreSQL, and all sorts of free software, and at the same time the FSF still has just a small appartment on the 5th floor of a building in Boston?

Here, take a look: https://www.fsf.org/about/contact/tour-2010

>>Gud+F
I can understand why some devs would have tried to ignore the writing on the wall for Android over the last few years (hopefully not from now on), but it's especially galling when you see some of them still using the likes of Github and Discord...

>>munchl+cb
It has http links to images that don't display when mixing secure content with insecure is disabled.

>>BrenBa+(OP)
Having spoken to Stallman over the years many times. One of the most difficult people to talk to, but completely spot on with his ideas.

>>munchl+cb
They don't work there any more.

https://www.fsf.org/about/contact/

>As of September 1, 2024, we have gone remote and no longer have an office for people to visit.

IIRC they moved somewhere else in the interim.

>>tgma+C
But Android is open source. In a way the situation here shows the limits of what is possible just by imposing license requirements that require distribution of source code. The problem is the concentration of power in the provision of services. Even licenses like the AGPL don't really solve the problem here, which is that there is a coalition of businesses including, say, Google and banks, that via their provision of essential services hold worrisome sway over the practical ability of many individuals to live their lives.

Stallman's statements about how the person controlling nonfree software "is your master" are important, but they don't go far enough. The problem is not just the controlling of abstract intellectual property like intellectual property rights to particular software. The problem includes the actual control of how services are provided. When the provision of important services --- be they auth, email, banking, groceries, whatever --- is concentrated in a few hands, those hands become masters of many, regardless of the software licenses involved.

>>BrenBa+po
Android is open source but not "free software" which is exactly on point. People have been fooled to think that open=respecting your freedoms, but there is no equivalency.

>>Gud+F
Cory Doctorow.

He's not an open source advocate as such, but his work on consumer rights and enshittification promotes solutions like using open source software, right to repair and strong consumer protection regulations.

>>SlowTa+4g
> completely spot on with his ideas.

Which ideas? I've read ideas from him that were borderline scandalous. I wouldn't say that 100% of what he ever said was "completely spot on".

Now if we are talking about the subset of his ideas that were completely spot on, then yeah, they are completely spot on :-).

I guess my point is that one can agree with a subset of his ideas and still dislike the guy. And I don't see why those ideas couldn't live without him. Especially if they are completely spot on. I don't get the cult of personality, not only for Stallman.

>>BlueTe+mb
It's interesting because I feel like I see more criticism against Android devs than against web devs. As if the web was "more free".

AOSP is as open source as Chromium is, and both are controlled by Google. To those who criticise Android devs... are you running Firefox?

>>BrenBa+po
Yes, in a way FSF has succeeded beyond their wildest imagination and they are facing a new world with new challenges.

> The problem includes the actual control of how services are provided.

FSF has opinions about SaaS which they call SaaSS (Service as a Software Substitute).

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-s...

>>BrenBa+po
> Even licenses like the AGPL don't really solve the problem here, which is that there is a coalition of businesses including, say, Google and banks, that via their provision of essential services hold worrisome sway over the practical ability of many individuals to live their lives

If Android was AGPL without source assignment, this wouldn't be an issue.

Thanks to the anti-tivoization clause manufacturers are required to provide you with the ability to run your own code on the device, without any restrictions, so you'd have a guaranteed right to root the device and sideload your own apps, without something like SafetyNet being able to figure it out.

>>BrenBa+po
Android is not open source. There is an android open source project, but it's not what you colloquially think of as Android. Its not the android you're running on your phone - in fact, I don't believe it can run on any phone currently produced on Earth. Its really more of a showcase, not a software.

>>ekianj+kp
Basically my point is that it's not really about software. It's about access to things that are of practical use. Having a monopoly (or oligopoly) on hamburgers or hammers would be a similar problem. It's true that within the software realm, open source (or "free software" or whatever other term you want to use) increases access, but it doesn't in itself solve the problem.

The people writing the software need to eat and if they can't do that it doesn't matter what the license is, the software won't get written and no one will be able to use it. Moves like this thing by Google are about economics rather than licenses or abstract ideas like "freedom". A world with ten gazillion closed-source programs competing would likely be more free than one with tons of open source software but only one company that can pay a living wage so that people can work on that software.

>>palata+gt
Just talking about his views on software and technology. When it comes to stuff outside that, I get his logic but damn he misses on a lot of things. Some very notable over the years. ;)