A dishonest piece, promoting a self-defeating and impractical policy.
Dishonest because RMS isn't against non-free elevator or microwave firmware, and he does prioritise projects based on harm. RMS campaigns for free smartphones and *wrote* a free operating system, and ESR has the gall to criticise him and then in the same breath say that we should be focussing more on operating systems and smartphones?! Self-defeating because by creating categories where freedom isn't important, we just incite Big Software to shift their nastyware into those categories. Like today's "games" which are just fig leaves for data mining software on smartphones and in social networking apps. It's not practical to categorise all software offered to you based on the functionality. If the users can't see the source code, you can't even know all the functionality. So ESR's categories are a blank cheque. It's short term thinking that allows companies with longer term plans to manoeuvre computer users into traps. Stallman's much more practical. If you demand that games are free, then Big Software won't bother merging their snooping software and their game software - they would know that one user would eventually separate them and everyone would then use just the game. So Stallman's approach, by ensuring that a solution would exist, makes it unlikely that the problem will be created in the first place. Stallman's approach to when software *can* be non-free is also more practical: "Is it upgradeable?" This policy is inherently tricky because perfection is impossible: some logic, circuits etc., will always be unmodifiable, so we're forced to draw a line between shades of grey. The "upgradeable" criterion is good because it exposes the manufacturer's own evaluation. If it is not upgradeable, then the manufacturer sees that piece of logic as basic and doesn't have plans to later add unannounced functionality or dependencies, so the capability for harm is limited. If the manufacturer sees value in being able to upgrade that software at a later date, then that logic is important enough for the user to demand to also have the ability to upgrade and replace it. The difference between these two is that RMS is working on all these issues. He's encountering the problems daily and having to develop and adapt his policies in reaction to their effectiveness and to the changes in society's use of computers from year to year. He has to publish policies that not only work for individuals, today, but would also work for society if they become generalised, and won't be made irrelevant by industry tomorrow. ESR's position is comfortable and simple because he doesn't have to prove whether his policies work. An RMS interview covering topics not in most interviews: http://blog.reddit.com/2010/07/rms-ama.html A free-your-android project from FSFE, advocated by RMS: http://fsfe.org/campaigns/android/android.html FSF's high priority projects: http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/priority-projects/ About when firmware has to be free: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/android-and-users-freedom.en.html "[...] The phone network firmware comes preinstalled. If all it did was sit there and run, we could regard it as equivalent to a circuit. When we insist that the software in a computing device must be free, we can overlook preinstalled firmware that will never be upgraded, because it makes no difference to the user that it's a program rather than a circuit. Unfortunately, in this case it would be a malicious circuit. Malicious features are unacceptable no matter how they are implemented. On most Android phones, this firmware has so much control that it could turn the product into a listening device. On some, it controls the microphone. On some, it can take full control of the main computer, through shared memory, and can thus override or replace whatever free software you have installed. With some models it is possible to exercise remote control of this firmware, and thus of the phone's computer, through the phone radio network. The point of free software is that we have control of our computing, and this doesn't qualify. While any computing system might HAVE bugs, these devices might BE bugs. (Craig Murray, in Murder in Samarkand, relates his involvement in an intelligence operation that remotely converted an unsuspecting target's non-Android portable phone into a listening device.) In any case, the phone network firmware in an Android device is not equivalent to a circuit, because the hardware allows installation of new versions and this is actually done. Since it is proprietary firmware, in practice only the manufacturer can make new versions—users can't. [...]" -- Ciarán O'Riordan +32 (0) 485 118 029 _______________________________________________ Free-software-melb mailing list Free-software-melb@lists.softwarefreedom.com.au http://lists.softwarefreedom.com.au/mailman/listinfo/free-software-melb
