Comment by redthrowaway | Hacker News Reader

Comment by redthrowaway | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I'm not rms, and I don't speak for him, but his opposition to non-free software is predicated upon the claim that it harms the user. As death is arguably a greater harm than any non-free software could inflict, I suspect he would say that it is not wrong to use non-free software to save a life if no free alternative is readily available.

You can ask him yourself, if you want: rms@fsf.org

He replies to almost all emails within a couple of days.

EDIT: He actually answered a very similar question in his reddit AMA [1]:

22. two_front_teeth: Suppose your doctor told you that you needed a medical procedure to survive but that the procedure would require inserting a device inside of your body which ran proprietary software. Would you be willing to have the procedure done to save your life?

RMS: The only way I could justify this is if I began developing a free replacement for that very program. It is ok to use a nonfree program for the purpose of developing its free replacement.

[1] http://blog.reddit.com/2010/07/rms-ama.html

To continue with the above comment, I'd like to point out that RMS has valid concerns regarding non-free software running inside your body.

You don't want to have a buggy pacemaker with unencrypted unprotected wireless access.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/07/27/buggy_pacemaker_code...

https://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2010/transparent-m...

Moreover I don't feel comfortable using a technology that is owned, developed and maintained exclusively by one company.

As if free software cannot be buggy and with lousy security. I am so tired of this "open and free makes everything perfect by magic" thinking.

It's not about it being more secure. It's that at least when it's suffering from malfunction, you got shitloads of eyeballs on the thing to make it work and work well. Why do you think all the OpenBSD tools are so ubiquitous?

Keeping this in the context of devices like a pacemaker, do you really believe that an open-source development model would be safer for the people who depend on it than a closed-source model? Do you expect them to flash custom ROMs to the pacemaker that keeps them alive if it turns out there may be a problem with them, instead of going to the hospital to get the thing replaced?

One of the things I've learned in life is that We're All Just Folk. There's no magical divinely-inspired programmer out there creating firmware for your pacemaker. The difference between him and me is process, and little else. If I'm given access to the same testing processes they use as part of the open source package, I see no reason to believe my code is going to be worse than anybody else's. Sure, I'd think twice before installing it, but in some sense that's irrational; I should think twice before anything like that because We're All Just Folk, and it's just some guys writing all the firmware we all depend on.

In some ways, it's best not to think too hard about this.

Whether or not a pacemaker is running free open source software is independant of whether or not a person can flash their own version of the software to it.

If it were open source you, or anyone who was fitted with the pacemaker could look at the rules that control it.

Making _anything_ visible and open to criticism instantly makes its creators more accountable and adds pressure for them to try and be responsible.

Nobody's saying they wouldn't just reflash it at the hospital. Replacing a pacemaker requires surgery, which is why they're externally programmable in the first place.

Oh come on, free software does not imply an open source development model and vice versa. You could very well have the software developed by a professional team and release it as free software.

Its not that it can't be buggy but rather that you can fix bugs once you find them. A proprietary manufacturer of a pacemaker wouldn't necessarily fix your bugs in a timely manner; you depend on his cooperation. He could be out of business, no longer support that model of pacemaker, argue that it isn't a bug or use any other reason not to fix your bug. If you have the source code, you are always free to fix the problem yourself or hire a specialist to fix the problem for you.

With enough eyes all bugs are shallow. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus_Law

Free eyes have lower marginal cost to the consumer than proprietary ones.

Very similar to my concerns for running non-free software inside our democracies.

> The only way I could justify this is if I began developing a free replacement for that very program.

If the Oracle suit taught me anything, it's to be careful when using APIs.

You could do it in EU though

Reply on news.ycombinator.com