Hacker News Reader

Comment by wiz21c | Hacker News Reader

Stallman has been my man for more than twenty years (the first time I heard him). I still 100% agree with his core values. But a while ago, he explained that mobile phones were closed/proprietary/spying and, in the very same talk, explained that if he had to give a call, then he'd use someone else's phone. That sounded wrong to me. I told it to him but the answer was not clear... So to me, he's mostly perfect, but that makes him a bit more of a human being, which I like too :-)

View on HN

He talked about the cell phone thing in some video I saw and that answer bugged me a bit too. At first it seems like that line of reasoning could be used to justify using all proprietary things. But I think that cell phones are proprietary spying tools is one issue, a reason not to register one in your name due to maintaining anonymity, as well as a reason not to do personal computing on, because who knows what the hell it's doing in the interest of the proprietor. On the other hand, making a few phone calls through someone else's phone is basically the same level of risk as using a pay phone. So both points are about cell phones but one is about cell phone as a computer/gps and the other is about the cell phone as a phone. If he had said he'd use someone else's phone to check his email, I'd be worried about his line of reasoning :)

I doubt he explained anything proprietary as being "closed". He spends considerable time correcting people when they summarize his views and use that term because (as he also explains) that's a reference to open source, a group founded over a decade after the free software movement which ostensibly promotes a development methodology purpose-built to remove the ethical underpinning of free software. See https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Closed for more on this. In practice, open source philosophy is disposed of in the face of powerful, reliable proprietary software ("How can I get a copy [of that proprietary program]?") and that's why proprietary software businesses like open source and don't care to discuss anything in terms of software freedom. But software freedom is far better for computer users in cases where the two philosophies conflict or diverge. See the section named "Different Values Can Lead to Similar Conclusions…but Not Always" of https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.... for how this plays out in practice.

As to using someone else's tracker (tracking is what those devices do most of the time, so why not acknowledge that's what they chiefly are by calling them by their rightful name?): this is right in line with understanding that software freedom concerns control of one's own computer. Remote services (such as /., Hacker News, Google mail, and more) might run on nonfree software. That's a bad choice for the computer owner (all computer owners deserve software freedom) but it doesn't say much about use of the service because service users don't have a say about someone else's computer. By the same token, those that choose to own and keep trackers on their person have already divulged the location of the tracker (and thus themselves), and that choice was never Stallman's to make. So the choice for Stallman (or someone using someone else's tracker) comes down to making the call or not.

>> service users don't have a say about someone else's computer

yep, except when you spend 2 hours in a conference explaining why people should use free software. At that point, as a service user, RMS says something about someone else's computer.

I agree with the logic of your argument, but it sounds like a lawyer's argument : it's ok by the law eventhough i'ts not super "ethical".

Be reassured, I support free software, specifically on the political side.

"except when you spend 2 hours in a conference explaining why people should use free software. At that point, as a service user, RMS says something about someone else's computer."

As to "spend[ing] 2 hours in a conference explaining why people should use free software": Be careful about the trap of concision as explained by Herman and Chomsky in "Manufacturing Consent". It takes time to lay out new ideas, ideas which mainstream media never discuss. Software freedom is still (even 30+ years after the fact) regarded as a new idea.

Regarding saying something about someone else's computer: I don't clearly understand your point. Are you sure this isn't giving someone convincing reasons to favor free software? Can you point to an example of where RMS is a service user and makes demands of that service beyond recommending what they ought to do to get the software freedom they deserve?

"I agree with the logic of your argument, but it sounds like a lawyer's argument : it's ok by the law eventhough i'ts not super "ethical"."

What's not ethical about not having control over someone else's computer?

ah, I like your arguments because I agree with them. But somehow I'm unable to drive my point home (so your arguments, while right, are not aimed at what I try to say :-)) :-(

let's just say that what you say is logical but sounds a bit incoherent to me. I expect coherency at the level of one's choice : if I complain about a tool because it's non free, because it's spying, then I do my best to not use it, be it mine or someone else's.

RMS says : "proprietary software represents an unacceptable danger to a free society" (citation from https://www.fsf.org/about/what-is-free-software ), but somehow proprietary software is acceptable when one needs to make a phone call...

I'm not trying to nitpick about what RMS says ('cos I totally agree with him, and I perfectly understand what the whole thing is about), it's just that, on that occasion, I found the argument weak.

I'll stop the argument here 'cos my english is not good enough to convey my idea precisely (and it's late) :-(

Reply on news.ycombinator.com