01.26.13
2013 Richard Stallman Talk
Summary: New Richard Stallman talk just published by the FSF
If you liked this post, consider subscribing to the RSS feed or join us now at the IRC channels.
Pages that cross-reference this one
27 Comments
What Else is New
Links 9/1/2017: Civilization VI Coming to GNU/Linux, digiKam 5.4.0 Released
Links for the day
Links 9/1/2017: Dell’s Latest XPS 13, GPD Pocket With GNU/Linux
Links for the day
Update on Patent Trolls and Their Enablers: IAM, Fortress, Inventergy, Nokia, MOSAID/Conversant, Microsoft, Intellectual Ventures, Faraday Future, A*STAR, GPNE, AlphaCap Ventures, and TC Heartland
A potpourri of reports about some of the world’s worst patent trolls and their highly damaging enablers/facilitators, including Microsoft which claims that it “loves Linux” whilst attacking it with patents by proxy
Mark Summerfield: “US Supreme Court Decision in Alice Looks to Have Eliminated About 75% of New Business Method Patents.”
Some of the patent microcosm, or those who profit from the bureaucracy associated with patents, responds to claims made by Techrights (that software patents are a dying breed in the US)
Eight Wireless Patents Have Just Been Invalidated Under Section 101 (Alice), But Don't Expect the Patent Microcosm to Cover This News
Firms that are profiting from patents (without actually producing or inventing anything) want us to obsess over and think about the rare and few cases (some very old) where judges deny Alice and honour patents on software
2017: Latest Year That the Unitary Patent (UPC) is Still Stuck in a Limbo
The issues associated with the UPC, especially in light of ongoing negotiations of Britain's exit from the EU, remain too big a barrier to any implementation this year (and probably future years too)
Links 7/1/2017: Linux 4.9.1, Wine 2.0 RC4
Links for the day
India Keeps Rejecting Software Patents in Spite of Pressure From Large Foreign Multinationals
India's resilience in the face of incredible pressure to allow software patents is essential for the success of India's growing software industry and more effort is needed to thwart corporate colonisation through patents in India itself
Links 6/1/2017: Irssi 1.0.0, KaOS 2017.01 Released
Links for the day
Watchtroll a Fake News Site in Lobbying Mode and Attack Mode Against Those Who Don't Agree (Even PTAB and Judges)
A look at some of the latest spin and the latest shaming courtesy of the patent microcosm, which behaves so poorly that one has to wonder if its objective is to alienate everyone
The Productivity Commission Warns Against Patent Maximalism, Which is Where China (SIPO) is Heading Along With EPO
In defiance of common sense and everything that public officials or academics keep saying (European, Australian, American), China's SIPO and Europe's EPO want us to believe that when it comes to patents it's "the more, the merrier"
Technical Failure of the European Patent Office (EPO) a Growing Cause for Concern
The problem associated with Battistelli's strategy of increasing so-called 'production' by granting in haste everything on the shelf is quickly being grasped by patent professionals (outside EPO), not just patent examiners (inside EPO)
Links 5/1/2017: Inkscape 0.92, GNU Sed 4.3
Links for the day
Links 4/1/2017: Cutelyst 1.2.0 and Lumina 1.2 Desktop Released
Links for the day
Financial Giants Will Attempt to Dominate or Control Bitcoin, Blockchain and Other Disruptive Free Software Using Software Patents
Free/Open Source software in the currency and trading world promised to emancipate us from the yoke of banking conglomerates, but a gold rush for software patents threatens to jeopardise any meaningful change or progress
New Article From Heise Explains Erosion of Patent Quality at the European Patent Office (EPO)
To nobody's surprise, the past half a decade saw accelerating demise in quality of European Patents (EPs) and it is the fault of Battistelli's notorious policies
Insensitivity at the EPO’s Management – Part V: Suspension of Salary and Unfair Trials
One of the lesser-publicised cases of EPO witch-hunting, wherein a member of staff is denied a salary "without any notification"
Links 3/1/2017: Microsoft Imposing TPM2 on Linux, ASUS Bringing Out Android Phones
Links for the day
Links 2/1/2017: Neptune 4.5.3 Release, Netrunner Desktop 17.01 Released
Links for the day
Teaser: Corruption Indictments Brought Against Vice-President of the European Patent Office (EPO)
New trouble for Željko Topić in Strasbourg, making it yet another EPO Vice-President who is on shaky grounds and paving the way to managerial collapse/avalanche at the EPO
365 Days Later, German Justice Minister Heiko Maas Remains Silent and Thus Complicit in EPO Abuses on German Soil
The utter lack of participation, involvement or even intervention by German authorities serve to confirm that the government of Germany is very much complicit in the EPO's abuses, by refusing to do anything to stop them
Battistelli's Idea of 'Independent' 'External' 'Social' 'Study' is Something to BUY From Notorious Firm PwC
The sham which is the so-called 'social' 'study' as explained by the Central Staff Committee last year, well before the results came out
Europe Should Listen to SMEs Regarding the UPC, as Battistelli, Team UPC and the Select Committee Lie About It
Another example of UPC promotion from within the EPO (a committee dedicated to UPC promotion), in spite of everything we know about opposition to the UPC from small businesses (not the imaginary ones which Team UPC claims to speak 'on behalf' of)
Video: French State Secretary for Digital Economy Speaks Out Against Benoît Battistelli at Battistelli's PR Event
Uploaded by SUEPO earlier today was the above video, which shows how last year's party (actually 2015) was spoiled for Battistelli by the French State Secretary for Digital Economy, Axelle Lemaire, echoing the French government's concern about union busting etc. at the EPO (only to be rudely censored by Battistelli's 'media partner')
When EPO Vice-President, Who Will Resign Soon, Made a Mockery of the EPO
Leaked letter from Willy Minnoye/management to the people who are supposed to oversee EPO management
No Separation of Powers or Justice at the EPO: Reign of Terror by Battistelli Explained in Letter to the Administrative Council
In violation of international labour laws, Team Battistelli marches on and engages in a union-busting race against the clock, relying on immunity to keep this gravy train rolling before an inevitable crash
FFPE-EPO is a Zombie (if Not Dead) Yellow Union Whose Only de Facto Purpose Has Been Attacking the EPO's Staff Union
A new year's reminder that the EPO has only one legitimate union, the Staff Union of the EPO (SUEPO), whereas FFPE-EPO serves virtually no purpose other than to attack SUEPO, more so after signing a deal with the devil (Battistelli)
EPO Select Committee is Wrong About the Unitary Patent (UPC)
The UPC is neither desirable nor practical, especially now that the EPO lowers patent quality; but does the Select Committee understand that?
Links 1/1/2017: KDE Plasma 5.9 Coming, PelicanHPC 4.1
Links for the day
2016: The Year EPO Staff Went on Strike, Possibly “Biggest Ever Strike in the History of the EPO.”
A look back at a key event inside the EPO, which marked somewhat of a breaking point for Team Battistelli
Content is available under CC-BY-SA
Michael said,
January 26, 2013 at 2:18 pm
Stallman repeatedly and rudely interrupts the person introducing him… shamefully. Stallman is simply a joke. A shame because there are so many amazing people in the open source community – Linus Torvalds, Jim Zemlin, Mark Shuttleworth, and many others – but Stallman gets so much attention.
The open source community should shun his rudeness and double-talk while showing respect for his contributions (such as GNU and the GPL).
But he babbles about how grouping things is bad… as if calling all mammals and reptiles and fish as “animals” is dishonest and a source of confusion. There is nothing wrong with grouping these groups which are not the same… nor does it make things harder to understand. Nobody is saying all animals are the same nor all IP is the same. Nobody. Stallman shows no understanding of this… his thinking is shallow and immature.
This does not mean all his ideas are bad. His comments on surveillance is correct in that it is a problem – though he shows no understanding that there is a difference between corporations and governments. He *could* talk about how there is too much mixing between them in an intelligent way… but he shows now ability. He also largely ignores how open source software also often collects info on people (though it is generally an option).
The worst part of this, though, is how he *does* talk about some very important topics, but refuses to use common language and speaks with double-talk and irrationality. He *could* be a powerful force of good and not the joke he has turned himself into.
Oh, and his whacky whining about the term “open source” is just absurd. Open source is a choice… you have no obligation share your own property. It is not “shallow minded” to push freedom… and it is hypocritical of Stallman to insist that this freedom is somehow against the idea of being “Free”.
He is just not rational. A real shame.
Homer said,
January 26, 2013 at 7:28 pm
Roy, why do you allow comments from a known troll and mentally-deranged psychopath like Snit, who continually smears Stallman and libelled him as a paedophile?
http://tinyurl.com/snit-calls-stallman-paedophile
Dr. Roy Schestowitz Reply:
January 26th, 2013 at 7:36 pm
See this new post which explains why it’s better to ignore than to suppress nasty speech, which discredits the messenger anyway. This site never deleted even a single comment.
Michael Reply:
January 26th, 2013 at 7:47 pm
Interesting article… and it speaks to why when Homer commits libel in such forums, as he did in this very thread, he can be held accountable by the courts.
No, I am not threatening to sue. I will go so far as to say I have no intentions *right now* of doing so. But it would be interesting. And a public apology on his part for his acts of libel is certainly in order, but I am well aware of the fact that he will not do so. He simply does not have it in him to do the right thing. So be it.
Michael Reply:
January 26th, 2013 at 7:57 pm
Roy: I strongly disagree with you in many areas, but I commend you for not blocking me nor removing my comments from your site. At least as of now I do not know of a single comment of mine you have removed. This shows a certain level of character from you.
You even had me on your “radio” show once. On it you were polite and courteous, even though you clearly were not pleased to have me on. After, however, you even agreed to have me on again, but backed out on that when I did specific checks on your comments and mine and found your claims about Linux and open source to be less accurate than mine. This clearly did not sit well with you and you have refused to discuss it. A shame. Where I was wrong with my comments – and there were some areas I was – I was open with it and even did fact checking to show where my I did have errors. You run from evidence of your errors and incorrect claims. I find this to be a shame, and it is one area where I strongly disagree with you.
Michael Reply:
January 26th, 2013 at 7:44 pm
Homer: when you lie about someone, as you just did, and do it is writing it is called “Libel”. You just committed libel. Specifically, you claimed I have said Stallman is a paedophile. You then provide a link that does not in any way back this accusation.
So while I have not done as you accuse, you *have* just committed libel. Your actions are immoral and wrong. Mine are moral and defendable. I have been very specific with my reasons why I disagree with Stallman on his views on school students and sexuality… giving specific quotes from his own sites: http://bit.ly/Vf46zC.
I am happy to provide you with specific links to his own site if you think those quotes are inaccurate or twisted out of context.
But, of course, none of this has anything to do with the above conversation. You are obfuscating the actual topic of what Stallman says in the video Roy has on his post. You are not willing to speak on the actual issues, so you commit libel and attack me with insults and accusations.
I strongly suggest you look into a mirror and try to improve what you see (and, no, I am not making fun of your looks here – I am speaking of your weak character).
As far as Roy allowing me to post on his site I respect his decision to allow views contrary to his own to be posted here. While he has many other character flaws, including going against his word and making things up about MS and Apple as he ignores wrong of Google and Samsung, in this I think he behaves in a reasonable and admirable way. He is a better man than you.
Homer said,
January 27, 2013 at 12:10 am
“And when someone is that supportive of sexual abuse of children, the chances are they have engaged in sexual abuse of children. Stallman should be investigated by the authorities.” ~ Snit
“Sexual abuse of children” = paedophilia, and “the chances are they have engaged in” is an accusation, further compounded with a demand for criminal investigation, therefore you are in fact accusing Richard Stallman of paedophilia.
Please feel free to have your lawyer confirm that your accusation is in fact actionable libel, as opposed to my citation of your accusation, which isn’t.
I’ll be waiting.
Michael Reply:
January 27th, 2013 at 12:49 am
Stallman has said he is supportive of allowing school children to look at porn… and while he thinks it should be illegal to make child porn he includes such material in his comments. He is very clear on this.
This is what he has said.
But he has *not* said he has acted on this. To do so would be a form of sexual abuse of children (though not sure I agree with you that his comment there are the same as paedophilia… that is how *you* classify his wishes… *not* me. So it is you, not I, saying that what Stallman says he supports is paedophilia. I do not agree but would not say your classification there rises to libel.
But I neither agree with your classification nor have ever said there is evidence he has acted on what he claims is acceptable and even moral behavior. Still, when someone makes such public statements it is completely fair of me to say it is my *opinion* that he should be investigated. That is not the same thing as saying he has committed the sexual abuse of children he claims to support. When you make this claim about me you are committing libel.
To be clear, you are saying two false things about me:
1) That I believe there is proof Stallman has acted on the behavior he states he supports.
2) That the form of sexual abuse he claims to support is paedophilia
Neither of those are true. This is not a debate – those are simple facts. And, yes, when you make those claims, esp. #1, you are committing libel. This is again not a debate – I am simply informing you. I am also asking you, kindly, to stop doing so. Are you willing to? Again, no threat of legal action… though I do not rule that out. Just a kind request that you stop lying about me. Please.
But all of this is a side issue – a smoke screen on your part to avoid the discussion on the video Roy showed. Clearly you have no defense of that, either.
You are simply dodging the topic with your libel.
Homer said,
January 27, 2013 at 12:17 am
@Roy
Sorry, but I don’t agree with the “right” to bigotry, or in Snit’s case, libel.
People should be just as accountable for what they say as what they do.
That is already the case in the UK, which criminalised at least one form of “free” speech: racism.
Michael Reply:
January 27th, 2013 at 12:30 am
Homer is the one who is committing libel – openly lying about me calling Stallman a pedophile. I *never* said this. Never. This is a direct and derogatory lie from him.
Good, Roy, to see you not back his actions. He is wrong. He knows it – you know it – it is just plain as day. I am completely right in my quotes about Stallman and based on them have a right to think he should be *investigated*.
But, again, all of this was an off topic side issue pushed by Homer to avoid the discussion about Stallman’s video. I would prefer to stick to the topic and not get sidetracked by Homer’s libelous actions. Good to see you acknowledge actions such as Homer’s are wrong, even if you are not willing to be honest enough to directly mention him in your commentary on such. You and Homer *should* be held accountable for what you say and do. That is *my* point. And, of course, so should I – which is why, unlike the two of you, I am honest and do not act as you two do.
mcinsand said,
January 28, 2013 at 1:08 pm
Homer,
I think that the principle that Roy wants us to exercise is best expressed in the wistom of Mark Twain:
“Do not argue with an idiot they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.”
Furthermore, Roy’s troll does do more do discredit himself regularly than the rest of us ever could.
However, what this does mean is that, as an honest member of the TechRights community, you can count on being called a liar for expressing a genuine opinion that is actually connected with the facts, especially if that opinion is negative with regard to the Applesoft duopoly. You can count on your words being twisted to imply that you said things that you clearly did not say, and much of this does cross the line into slander.
Mark Twain did have it right. There are enough real issues to deal with honestly to take up the time available, so the mentally-defective need to be left to fend for themselves.
Michael Reply:
January 28th, 2013 at 1:42 pm
I agree with your idea of not arguing with the idiots, at least to some extent. That is why I made it very clear to Homer:
The fact his accusations against me is wrong is not something I am going to argue with him. He lied about me, again:
1) That I believe there is proof Stallman has acted on the behavior he states he supports.
2) That the form of sexual abuse he claims to support is paedophilia
Those are simple fabrications.
Same thing with Roy. I do not argue with him; I point out the facts. When Roy, for example, told me things which were not true, such as how PCLOS shows as much consistency as OS X and how facts about its even greater inconsistency from the past are true, I simply showed him the facts:
http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/PCLOS-OSX-comparison.pdf
And Roy’s actions showed he knew he was wrong. He not only had *no* response, he went against his word and dis-invited me from being on his show again.
There is no argument going on here: and argument is an exchange of diverging or opposite views, but there is no exchange here and no two sides of “views”. Homer and Roy do not believe their claims – their claims are not their “views”, unless you think they really are delusional. They knowingly lie and technology and about me and I enjoy showing evidence and pointing out and *supporting* facts.
I do not and will not lower myself to their level. This fact alone is enough of a reason, in their minds, to lie even more about me. It is an interesting psychological study.
mcinsand said,
January 29, 2013 at 6:29 am
Roy, thank you so very much for hosting this. RMS is a treasure, and I am thankful that we have someone out front fighting for our freedoms. The interplay at the beginning was hilarious, and it’s great to also see how sincere he is about the issues while not taking himself seriously. At least he is not alone. There is an interesting article I came across covering how Google is taking some steps to bring back some of the protections that Apple, Microsoft, and the US Government have worked to remove. Users that care about rights, freedom, and privacy should watch this. Then again, maybe the ones that don’t care would wake up, if they watched the video.
Michael Reply:
January 29th, 2013 at 8:39 am
LOL. I love sarcasm.
mcinsand said,
January 29, 2013 at 9:57 am
Roy,
The Infopolicy is a great article, but I do not see things the way you do; the author is discussing the need to preserve anonymity, particularly when individuals want to express controversial views. However, the right to free speech does not include the right to take another person’s megaphone… or discussion portion of an internet article’s comment section. The only way that I see the article applying to a blog post is that, just as a government has no business forcing you to suppress a poster’s view or disclose that person’s identification, having a government force you to give space for that person’s views would be equally abhorrent. A personal page or blog is privately controlled by the individuals involved, and that is how we need to keep it.
You have the right to host or suspend any posts that you want without government interference, but that does not mean that you have a duty to host views that do not contribute to your site. Dissenting views are essential to any good discussion, and they help us to think, rethink, and refine our perspectives. However, not all dissenting views are created equal. There are thoughtful dissenters, and I was fortunate to meet up with one recently on Reddit that truly made me rethink my position on one issue. There is a world of difference, though, between someone with an intelligent, honest, thoughtful contrary post versus one that merely says others are lying or envious on encountering other perspectives. The former elevates and the latter poisons the community idea exchange environment. Although I have been silenced when I thought it inappropriate, I have also been well-deservedly nudged when I needed to rethink how I was expressing a view.
Roy, this is your site, and you do need to operate it in the way that you see fit, without interference from a government or any of us in the reading portion of the Techrights community. This is, in a metaphorical way, one of your e-residences, and you rightfully set the house rules. I would certainly not allow a guest in my house to call another guest a liar (or whatever) for merely expressing an honest view, but those would be my rules for my house. Abusive speech is protected from legal interference, mainly to let us determine how we see fit to handle it.
On the other hand, the Techrights discussions have definitely suffered. The way I remember it, ‘Needs Sunlight,’ used to regularly post some lengthy, excellent comments. I remember at least one where he had a significant impact on my views. Commenting honestly in the current environment is more of a challenge, though. The environment here was much better when we could just focus on the material in an article, without giving a second thought to the unavoidable backlash from being honest, particularly if a comment has to do with the apparently-holy Applesoft.
While I get a lot out of your articles, the discussion should not be something to dread. Best of luck to you, but I think I’ll hang out elsewhere.
Dr. Roy Schestowitz Reply:
January 29th, 2013 at 10:03 am
The goal of the trolls is to suppress participations in sites which they frequent because they hate those sites. I agree that trolls do succeed in wasting the efforts of others. It’s a side goal. The best way to address this issue, IMHO, is to ignore the trolls and do exactly the opposite of what they wish.
Michael Reply:
January 29th, 2013 at 12:13 pm
I do not see many as actual “trolls”, at least in your forums. I think many people – yourself included – strongly believe what you say even though the evidence does not back it. I think the difference is more about some people embracing evidence and logic and others embracing emotions… and, of course, none of us is 100% either way.
Needs Sunlight Reply:
January 29th, 2013 at 10:36 am
Thanks for the encouragement. You may be right about the trolls. It may be time to deal with them differently, especially as they try to bring off topic and or libellous material into the discussion.
Michael Reply:
January 29th, 2013 at 12:10 pm
I absolutely agree that Roy had a right to allow or disallow any posts he wishes on his own site. I disagree with Roy in many areas but appreciate how he does not remove posts which offer another perspective.
In the case of my posts I am happy to defend with data and logic and other support what I say. If I cannot then I am happy to note that I am unable to. While you do not say it, I suspect you are reference to me in thinking I have committed libel – but that is certainly not the case. If you think otherwise then by all means show it. This can be done here or in private email to not muddy the waters here. If you can show where I have done wrong then I am very open to it and even thank people who show where I am wrong.
I think this is why so many of those who are controlled so strongly by emotions get so upset with me – I am a very logic / evidence ruled person and do not let emotions control me as strongly as many on this site and in COLA. Makes me very hard for them to understand and even harder to refute. They *feel* a certain way about open source software or Stallman or whatever and become very uncomfortable when the evidence does not back their feelings.
Needs Sunlight said,
January 29, 2013 at 10:33 am
The talk was quite good. Though the professor doing the introduction seemed confused about the issues and that did not come off well. The questions at the end were off-mic but he handled them well especially the one who missed or ignored the presentation.
Dr. Roy Schestowitz Reply:
January 30th, 2013 at 6:05 am
The professor doing the introduction did not do too badly. Stallman always likes to be pedantic with the presenters.
Michael Reply:
January 30th, 2013 at 9:05 am
The intro was fine. Stallman was rude and made himself look bad. And, sadly, by extension he makes the open source community look bad, as well as those of us hoping to see changes to the way IP is handled.
It is sort of like the Republicans in the USA… they have some good ideas but the extremists of the group get the attention. Stallman keeps getting attention. This is a shame. The open source community should shun him, much as the Republicans should shun the Tea Party and the Religious Right.
chila said,
February 4, 2013 at 5:24 pm
he’s a genius, even thou it’ll be hard in his ideal world, and I myself don’t agree with all he says, he had done more for IT & digital rights than most
Michael Reply:
February 4th, 2013 at 7:16 pm
Hard to say if he is a genius, but he certainly has done a lot of amazing things for the open source ecosystem. He is mixed bag though – his insistence on using double-talk and refusal to even use certain words pertinent to the ideas he is discussing muddles his message… which is in itself somewhat contradictory. He is also just socially inept – which is all too common with tech types… but he is that way far more than say Linus Torvalds who comes across as sincere, funny, and honest… completely opposite of Stallman. Add to that some of Stallman’s less well known comments about school students and sexuality and the man is a walking disaster – out for his own glory and attention more than anything and more of a detriment at this point to the open source movement than a benefit.
He should step down and stop trying to be the face of anything. He no longer is contributing anything of value – or if he is the damage he is doing is far larger than any benefit he might offer.
chila Reply:
February 5th, 2013 at 1:30 pm
Well he’s the head of the Free Software Foundation, an organization that fights for many rights and against many wrongs I consider very important (http://www.fsf.org/campaigns). The world is definitely a better place thanks to FSF and Stallman.
chila said,
February 4, 2013 at 5:26 pm
always an inspiration to hear him
Dr. Roy Schestowitz Reply:
February 5th, 2013 at 10:00 am
People need to internalise information about privacy, freedom, autonomy and so on. These issues are not brought to light by much of the media.