THE concepts put forth by rms (Richard Stallman) more than 35 years ago are more relevant than ever. Back then computers rarely had network connections (the Internet was immature and the World Wide Web was still waiting a decade in the future). The concept of back doors wasn't quite the same in the 1980s; remote access through back doors is meaningless unless there's a network. Maybe back doors as a concept made sense in the forensics sense (when physical access to the machine is possible, albeit data rather than packets may be encrypted).
"The concept of back doors wasn't quite the same in the 1980s; remote access through back doors is meaningless unless there's a network."This gave me hope; is the FSF recognising the big picture and the big issues? Without elimination of software patents (35 U.S.C. ۤ 101 got us closer to it, but IBM lobbies against 35 U.S.C. ۤ 101 and it also pays the FSF) there's no software freedom. Such patents impede the dissemination of free/libre code.
As per our latest Daily Links with an editorial comment, the IBM-connected OIN is still pushing software patents, this time disguised as "hey hi" (the EPO loves this term as a loophole for granting software patents in Europe). It makes one wonder if IBM, the 'old' big bad monopolist, is compatible with Free software (and by extension Red Hat as well). Why does the FSF allow itself to become financially dependent on the company that lobbies for software patents in India, in Europe and in the US? In other countries too of course... (but it takes more work to show this)
The author figosdev, who used to support the FSF financially, has pretty much given up on the FSF. To me, one key issue is the FSF's silence on systemd (modularity under attack, probably for vendor lock-in) and IBM's lobbying for software patents. How can the FSF reconcile all this?
figosdev wrote to me some hours ago to say: "By the way Roy, who else has pointed out that OIN is the GitHub of software patents?
"The latest moves into OIN and the latest moves into GitHub aren't coincidental. The assimilation and annexation continues.
"Ultimately whoever owns OIN will own free software. Of course you can't own OIN, can you? Wait, that's like saying you can't own the FSF or the GNU project."
Sarcasm noted.
"I think rms made a mistake by embarking on that trip to Microsoft (a few weeks before he was 'canceled') and it's clear that Microsoft/GitHub took none of his suggestions seriously."My interpretation of Free software is somewhat personal; the concept itself is impersonal, but each can have a different interpretation of it. The advocacy of rms is still as lucid as ever, even if the FSF doesn't give rms the limelight he deserves. I think rms made a mistake by embarking on that trip to Microsoft (a few weeks before he was 'canceled') and it's clear that Microsoft/GitHub took none of his suggestions seriously. GitHub is a mess, full of JavaScript and lock-in. It's totally proprietary.
To me, software freedom is about more than "GNU" or "Linux" or "GNU/Linux". Seeing so-called 'digitalisation' of society (that's what EPO calls it) and seeing software patents and secret code and clown computing and listening devices connected to these clowns makes me growingly concerned. Recently, in the United States, the drones of the police were taken up another notch. These combine surveillance with strategic response (violence). It may only be a matter of time before these Orwellian 'machines' (military gear) do to US citizens what's already done to Somalis. What can we, as producers of code, do about this?
"To me, software freedom is about more than "GNU" or "Linux" or "GNU/Linux"."The so-called 'ethical' licences mostly serve to distract from software freedom itself. They're based upon the assumption that limiting access to software or restricting who can run it (a bit like UEFI 'secure boot') would somehow enhance freedom. It's worse than misguided, it's not enforceable (good luck getting military contractors to obey copyright laws, especially as some impoverished programmer with no lawyers), and it's strategically weak.
I used to say that OSI and OIN and the Linux Foundation and whatnot are useless front groups beholden to corporate interests. The FSF is beholden to IBM, which in itself is a growing concern. The FSF should never have accepted corporate patrons at all.
So who to trust? Well, rms seems to have not been compromised. He's still out there (or indoors; the coronavirus doesn't help one who travels to give speeches). He'll be out there for years to come. I predict that I too will be out there, hopefully for decades to come. Techrights will never take money from corporations and depending on how the Web evolves (or collapses) it may stick around for a couple more decades. Contingencies and successions are already in place. The site is in good hands, strong hands, technical hands. It can outlive all sorts of perils. ⬆