I considered him extreme until I thought more about it, then came to agree with him on most major points...
... that was in 1993.
Glad to see others here.
That essay is what made me a firm supporter.
What has he done to promote laws to prevent what he fears, and to fight laws that lead to what he fears?
His speaking schedule is often published in the FSF newsletter; he appears to speak to a group about free software around once per week.
Even if GPL software had 99% market share in the US, and everyone in the country were running the same kind of computer as Stallman, the government could still step in and pass all kinds of draconian laws.
Getting regular people to adopt the GPL ethos is fine, but if the ethos doesn't permeate government as well, Stallman might as well be touring around promoting the Spice Girls for all governments will be prevented from doing intrusive things.
What's larger than freedom?
Let's assume Stallman had qualified as a Medical Doctor rather than a Computer Programmer.
Perhaps he would be making the same argument about pharmaceutical patents?
That license, and others derived from it, are at the root of most non-proprietary software and many types of user-created content. Using the internet means you've used software that likely could not have been created without such licenses. Wikipedia is another example of something using a license derived from the one he helped create.
Helping create flourishing communities of people legally sharing each others' work, collectively creating great works, influences legislation. Imagine if no licenses existed for people to legally remix each other's work without explicit permission. Disney, the MPAA, the RIAA, and others would have had greater ability to lengthen copyright terms, increase penalties for infringement, and so on.
Microsoft had a strong play for extending from the desktop to servers when Unix was fragmented. I wonder what might have happened if apache didn't exist to compete with Microsoft -- how much more influence Microsoft might have had over U.S. legislation.
He's done a lot more than just help write the GPL, but that alone contributed a lot.
You see, the GPL takes the copyright system and turns it on its head. That's why it is named a copyleft license, an obvious pun.
How does it do that? Well, copyright prevents distribution. The GPL rides this restriction and says that you may not distribute GPL-licensed software unless (1) you distribute it with no extra restrictions + (2) the distributed binary is either accompanied by source-code or the source-code is available on request. The GPL COULD NOT demand this if it weren't for the copyright law and in regards to freedom / protecting users rights, it works out great because nobody can abuse the GPL without legal repercussions.
It's actually beautiful if you think about it and innovative - it enabled open-source / free software to really disrupt the software industry, creating the equivalent of the public commons. And this movement went viral and moved to books, music and movies. And this would have happened without the GPL, but on a much lower scale. The GPL is the spark that started the fire.
BTW - to change the world you don't need to change the laws. The alternative is to make them obsolete and technology has a habit of doing that ;-)
It's that his story looked much less plausible in 1997 than it does now. I remember reading the story at that time. I thought it had something going for it, but was very far-fetched and unrealistic. 14 years later, it seems way more plausible.
I agree with Stallman in many ways but I also have some important and major disagreements. I am sure that he would call me an enemy to free software, even though I regularly contribute to it, and that he would therefore consider my actions absolutely immoral and inexcusable. But I don't think it's immoral and inexcusable to charge money for things in a meaningful way (i.e., a way that actually generates money), at least not in the current context. I've read Stallman's arguments and don't find them particularly convincing.
I also don't believe that GNU is entitled to a prefix every time a complete system that uses the Linux kernel and GNU toolchain is mentioned.
So where does that leave me? As far as I can tell, Stallman would refuse to work with me, disavow any relationship with me, and consider me an immoral provocateur that harms free software no matter how much good I do for it in actuality (due to my disavowal of freedom 2 as an essential element in moral software).
That kind of hardcore, unyielding, exclusive ideology makes it really hard to get anywhere with people. You can't show someone the error of their ways if you refuse to associate or cooperate with them.
1. As an advocate, RMS scores own goals far too often.
RMS seems to go out of his way to present himself as an eccentric who has no comprehension of social norms.
I've also seen an entire roomful of people who were ready to eviscerate a new Microsoft technology (this was back when trusted computing was being introduced) suddenly flip around to sympathy with the Microsoft guy when Stallman weighed in.
2. Being RMS' friend is almost as bad as being his enemy.
He will condemn someone who has a slightly different position, or has made compromises, with equal vituperation as someone who is directly opposed.
I also know someone who got into trouble with his own repressive government due to RMS being unable to keep his mouth shut on issues he didn't understand. (Please don't ask for details.)
It's sad because, like the OP, I think RMS is fundamentally right about these issues.
Open software advocates should treat closed and controlled systems in the same fashion that techies implore content creators to treat piracy: an unstoppable force of nature that must be accepted and competed with, rather than feared and demonized.
Also underlying both issues: the need for improved business models to sustain free software and open content. People like to get paid, and t-shirts + donations doesn't always cut it.
What you're saying is that they should throw their arms up in the air and say "welp, that's how the real world works in reality, so might as well give up and accept it".
But I think you're being unfair. The normal open advocates don't fear and demonize closed source. They may secretly pity it, they may secretly hate it, I don't know.
The RMS vision of open source, when you get right down to it, is that of two sandpits. In one sandpit, everyone shares their toys. In the other sandpit... who cares what they do?
If someone comes from the closed source world and wants to play in the open source sandpit, they have to play by the rules (sharing and openness).
I think RMS gets frustrated sometimes, because he doesn't want the other people playing in the open playpit giving their stuff away to the people in the selfish (no sharing) playpit. I think his thinking is that it would mean that there is less incentive for them "over there" to examine and repent of their selfish ways.
Sometimes the people in the no-sharing playpit have rich relatives that buy them nice toys for Christmas. But RMS views that as okay, if the open playpit turns out to have a need for one of those, he is confident that the open source people have the ability to make something even better, if they can be bothered to do so.
> In one sandpit, everyone shares their toys. In the other sandpit... who cares what they do?
That's the attitude I mean. The fact is, a lot of people care: engineers, customers, and investors are making really interesting things happen in that sandpit. For FOSS advocates to avoid the development happening there is a hindrance to progress, not in aid of it. Maybe if RMS let himself own an Android or iPhone (perhaps with SIM removed), he would understand why these new platforms are a big deal, and be better equipped to create truly open equivalents, instead of insisting on living in his purist tech world of the 70's (wget-ing web pages? really?).
Closed source isn't evil. It's selfish. And we expect a certain level of selfishness from both individuals and companies. I fully support shifting our values in tech and elsewhere to a greater esteem for community and the commons. But calls for all software to be open and free is unrealistic: many people can't or won't create value without a selfish incentive. Time spent advocating against closed platforms is better spent making open platforms better.
You and I on the other hand, might look at it and say "okay, but how do these brave new programmers eat? Who pays their rent?" Back in the day, RMS used to just do some hand waving and point out that if (sorry: "once") the economic benefits of open source are realised that companies will do this because they realise it is in their best interests.
I'd be delighted to be wrong, but it seems that only a tiny minority of Open Source developers are actually hired by enlightened companies to work on their Open Source projects full time. Google being an obvious big contributor in that regard. But here's the thing with RMS, he is such an extremist that even Google's contribution isn't enough. He doesn't want a measly couple of buillion dollars worth of commitment, he wants it all, the heart mind body and soul must be dedicated to the cause or you are unworthy.
The sandbox metaphor breaks down when we look at one of the things that RMS objects to about Google, that they use Open Source, and they provide 'free(ish)' software services in return, but because those web/software services sit behind the "big-iron" curtain Google are never obligated to release their changes and improvements. Hence the GPL becomes ineffective in that scenario.
The problem of course is the risk of ghetto-isation of the open source developers. You and I might be reluctant to leap in boots and all because of petty economic concerns and so keep at least one foot in the closed source world. This lets us see lots of exciting things happening there. But don't forget that there is lots of stuff happening in the open source world. Closed source may look more exciting now, but RMS is taking the long position that in the end his legions of trusty hackers working together will create something much better than the corporations all doing their own small secret things.
And something genuinely spectacular happened last year. Last year was (finally) the long predicted, long awaited year of Linux hitting the mainstream. Except of course it wasn't Linux on the desktop, but Linux on mobile (Android).
Unfortunately, as open as it might be, it seems to me that Android is deeply flawed as far as alignment with the GNU philosophy of openness, what with the carriers doing all kinds of horrible things (some behind the scenes, some brazenly out in public). I hear stories of Microsoft making more money off Android than the do off Windows mobile (or whatever it is called this week), simply by threatening legal action, and patents of dubious parentage. Not to mention some of the openness being more open than others (e.g. Google releasing the code to some partners but not others, and not the public)
Seen through the argument I just made, when you say closed and controlled systems are an unstoppable force of nature and must be accepted, what you're really saying is digital spying/tracking/restriction is an unstoppable force of nature and must be accepted. It really is an all or nothing proposition at this point.
Theoretically, you can have a completely unfree system that is completely open at the same time.
For reference, this was the argument I was replying to:
> … if there's even one proprietary bit of executable code, you can't guarantee your system isn't spying (or capable of spying) on you.
I also can't recommend for others not knowing their needs and interests, but I can tell you some things I do. Maybe some things will translate to what you do.
I use free software as much as possible, running gnu/linux on my computers since 1996. I stopped dual booting about ten years after that.
I give some time to support freedombox -- http://joshuaspodek.com/tag/freedombox -- when I can.
I keep apprised of activities of Stallman, Eben Moglen, and a few others.
I attend conferences when I can, like Debconf.
I hardly code, but I've released a bit GPL'ed.
I support and contribute to Wikipedia.
I talk about free software to people who want to know more.
My art pieces -- http://joshuaspodek.com/tag/unionsquareinmotion and http://joshuaspodek.com/new_bryant_park_in_motion_videos -- run free software.
There's a short list. I'm not trying to save the world all by myself, just to avoid infringing on other people's freedom. All of the above together adds up to a modest amount of time and other resources. I have other priorities for most of my time, but, as I mentioned, I think by making myself aware of the issues, I've reduced how much I'd infringe on others' freedoms.
If you're looking for suggestions, I think asking the questions you asked in an open-minded way will start you off. I expect the more you do, the more you'll learn you can do.
The technological route involves software to enable darknets, and hardware/software to enable ad hoc mesh networking.
The political route involves electing representatives that care about these issues, which the Pirate Party have had success doing, e.g. in Germany and Sweden.