Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
GNU is Not Unix Open Source Programming Ubuntu

Richard Stallman Calls for Software Package Systems that Help Maintain Your Freedoms (libreplanet.org) 92

Posted by EditorDavid from the going-to-the-libraries dept.
Last week 69-year-old Richard Stallman gave a 92-minute presentation on the state of the free software movement. Stallman covered numerous topics, but also added as an aside at one point: Ubuntu of course is a non-free distro, and I wouldn't recommend that anyone use it. Some important packages are now distributed only through their non-freedom-respecting package system, and not as Debian packages. So it's even harder than before to get any freedom out of an Ubuntu installation.
But Stallman also sees a larger issue: Another area where we have problems is there are several languages which come with a package library -- basically people post packages in them. And that might be fine if they had a good criterion for the licensing of the libraries people upload into those sites -- but they're not developed by free software activists, and they don't have such a criterion. There are non-free packages in those libraries too.

Now, some of them make it possible to find out whether a library is free. Some of them, it's difficult. Sometimes -- yeah, you could probably look at the source code and see what licenses are in it, and then you could look up those licenses in GNU.org/licenses/license-list.html and see if all those licenses are free... The problem is, they don't help you. At the very least they should make it easy to say, "Show me only the free packages." And then, "Show me only the GPL-compatible packages, because I'm writing a GPL-covered program, and I can't use the libraries that are not GPL compatible. And I certainly won't ever think of using a non-free library."

They're not interested in helping people move forward in freedom. And so we need people to write front-ends for those package archives, which will show only the freely-licensed packages, and which can be asked to show which ones are GPL-compatible, or show only those. This way they will be usable easily by the free software community. If you like one of the languages that has this problem, please show your appreciation for that language by reconciling its use with maintaining freedom.
And this leads Stallman to a related setback for the free software movement: the containers themselves that are packaging some programs with the libraries they need: The old way of doing this was you would make sure that your program said which versions of libraries it was compiled to work with, and in the source code you'd use something like Autoconf so that it could work with the various library versions. And this way you could build the program for a wide variety of free operating systems and versions of them.

Well, that's some work, so some developers, they release a free program -- not all of them release free programs, but some of them do release free programs -- using containers. And the container has one set of libraries in it. And how do you really know what's in there? It's not straightforward to verify that all the libraries in the container are free, and a lot of people won't realize that they should even think about it. So the use of containers, as they are implemented nowadays by people who are not free software activists and are not particularly concerned with this question, is an obstacle to verifying that you're installing free software.

Well, maybe some of these container systems could be improved, or maybe another one could be designed to solve these problems. If a container packaging system were designed by people who care about freedom, they might find good ways to satisfy this goal, as well as others. So it's something you could possibly work on.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Richard Stallman Calls for Software Package Systems that Help Maintain Your Freedoms More

Richard Stallman Calls for Software Package Systems that Help Maintain Your Freedoms

Comments Filter:

  • So Richard Stallman is 138 years old and gave a 184 minute presentation?

    • It's not a dupe. (Score:4, Informative)

      by Ungrounded Lightning ( 62228 ) on Sunday April 17, 2022 @11:17AM (#62454264) Journal

      So Richard Stallman is 138 years old and gave a 184 minute presentation?

      This article is not a dupe of the several-articles-back overview article on Stallman's presentation.

      That one discussed several sections of his talk, but did not mention the issues about packaging making free-license conforming development more difficult. This one is specifically about that set of issues.

      • Agreed, listened to the talk and it was clear what's going on here in terms of not being a dupe. Just wanted to boost my self-worth by beating the other kneejerk FPers to the punch.

        I feel great now but do want to offer my apologies to the /. community for the distraction. Thanks.

      • Re:It's not a dupe. (Score:4, Insightful)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) on Sunday April 17, 2022 @12:05PM (#62454354) Homepage Journal

        He has a point here, it should be possible to include licence data in the package repo and from that check for compatibly with a selected licence, or derive a list of compatible licences for the project.

    • I can't tell if it's a wasted FP joke, though it's definitely a vacuous Subject. Care to explain the numbers? What's to laugh at? (And so far the moderators, such as they is, seem to agree with me.)

      But I think the real joke is Stallman's confusion about freedom. Somebody has to pay something for everything. I've actually tried to discuss financial matters with him, and he emphatically doesn't care (even though he managed to end with a deeply insightful and helpful question). It's possible the confusion abou

      • I think you are missing the bigger point. If my company is developing software, we have to be careful about whose libraries we are using. If we use someone's non free library, we could owe them money even if that library would have been easy to develop in house.

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by shanen ( 462549 )

          No, but I think your intentions are okay. But my point is that the financial model needs to be part of it and FOSS has never had a viable one. The different sense of "free" need to be kept separated.

          I think your point fits within the broader general problem of "government of the corporations, by the lawyers, for the richest 0.1%". Clarification needed?

          • There are plenty of working business models with FOSS. SaaS comes to mind (although ethically questionable ^^), but also consulting services, and paid support for projects using FOSS...

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by shanen ( 462549 )

              No, I am not claiming that no companies have figure out ways to exploit FOSS. Any other straw men you like? Or maybe you should go back and read what I actually wrote?

              • my point is that the financial model needs to be part of it and FOSS has never had a viable one.

                Look, you can't write that, and then say "I am not claiming that no companies have figure out ways to exploit FOSS."

    • He only smells 138 years old.

  • Dielectric constant (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Okian Warrior ( 537106 ) on Sunday April 17, 2022 @11:15AM (#62454258) Homepage Journal

    Stallman has a sort-of "dielectric constant" personality, with both a real and an imaginary component.

    The real component is his so-called abrasive personality, where he presents as strong willed and opinionated IRL, with perhaps a touch of autism. Most people shrug it off and get on with their lives: lots of people are abrasive, abrasive is a spectrum, and anyway his opinions are well founded. It's more like he's an evangelist.

    The imaginary component was given to RMS by the "woke" crowd when he didn't agree that Marvin Minsky (a personal friend of RMS) was a despicable person for having gone to Jeffrey Epstein's island. Note that although Minsky *did* go to the island, there's no evidence that Minsky had sex with anyone there (and Minsky later mentioned that he did not), and it wasn't clear at that time and with the information available to Minsky that the offered sex was illegal.

    The left was fine with RMS until the Epstein scandals broke, RMS had the audacity to doubt that Minsky did anything wrong, and now RMS is radioactive. He must be cancelled, punished, and removed from polite society everywhere.

    As with any dielectric, RMS is highly polarizing and tends to bring potential conflicts closer to breakdown.

    Instead of jumping onto the bandwagon of hatred, go listen to him speak sometime. He's highly intelligent, well-spoken, and has many well developed good ideas.

    I have, and have met and talked with him in a social setting. He's definitely an evangelist, but nowhere near the unredeemable jerk the left makes him out to be.

    He's the best example I know of for someone who the left wants cancelled, but whose opinions and ideas should be part of the political dialogue.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      It's all the things combined. The "pleasure cards", the unwelcome behaviour, the defence of Minsky. But most of all, it's the refusal to apologise. Everyone makes mistakes, but we do expect people to learn from them. Especially people in a position of power like RMS.

      I still have a lot of respect for his achievements, but he needs to stop sabotaging himself and the FSF.

      • Stallman apologized [fsf.org]: "Sometimes I lost my temper because I didn't have the social skills to avoid it. Some people could cope with this; others were hurt. I apologize to each of them." ... "I've learned something from this about how to be kind to people who have been hurt. In the future, that will help me be kind to people in other situations, which is what I hope to do."

        • That's sort of an apology, but sort of not an admission of acting incorrectly out of free will:

          Sometimes I lost my temper because I didn't have the social skills to avoid it.

          Losing your temper is more a matter of self-control or neurological function, not an issue of skills. People without social skills can/also avoid situations. They also don't necessarily lose their temper *at* people. How you express that loss of temper, though, is probably a matter of practice/training/guidance/skills.

          Some people could cope with this; others were hurt. I apologize to each of them."

          Lots of people say, "I apologize". Well, what's the actual apology? I inflicted harm on or "

          • Re:Dielectric constant (Score:4, Insightful)

            by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) on Sunday April 17, 2022 @02:18PM (#62454604)

            That's sort of an apology

            Those who most loudly demand an apology are the least likely to accept it when offered.

            • That's sort of an apology

              Those who most loudly demand an apology are the least likely to accept it when offered.

              His statement is largely a list of reasons why he acts how he does, but very little in the way of admitting he did anything wrong.

              I'd call it a notpology [wikipedia.org] but he doesn't even notpologize that much, just explain why he acts how he does.

              At it's core I'd say the statement is "I probably have autism/aspergers so it's unavoidable that I say/do offensive and hurtful things". That's a position I have sympathy for, though I'm not sure it's a good idea for your main spokesperson.

        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          Keep reading. Further down he doubles down on his defence of Minsky.

            At best, he doesn't seem to have listened to the criticism. If I were being disingenuous, I might suggest he is repeating the falsehood that people thought he was defending Epstein.

          • Maybe I misunderstood what you think he should be apologizing for.

            Is there something wrong with believing an old friend to be innocent of accusations, especially when said accusations lack evidence?

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

              His apology says that he didn't know Minsky well.

              The evidence is that by the time Minsky organised that symposium, Epstein had already been convicted and banned from donating to Minsky's work. The symposium was a way to avoid that ban, free hosting rather than a direct cash gift.

              • It sounds like you are arguing that Minsky was guilty. Ok. I personally don't have an opinion on that.

                RMS clearly does though, and he disagrees with you.

                Is THAT the moral wrong deed that justifies blocking RMS from the ways in which he still wants to contribute to the world? Having a different opinion than you about whether or not some old dead guy is guilty of a crime?

      • You'd just find some new excuse (Score:1, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        You'd just find some new excuse, and at the end of the day, not accept his, or any apology anyway.

        The only winning move to your game is not to play.

        If you want people to learn from their mistakes, you're very welcome to give a good example. Learn when it is not appropriate to demand apology. Learn when to accept a given apology. Learn to accept when someone refuses to apologise and has good reason.

        Go on, show us all. Can you learn beyond your ideology?

      • I mean, when you're travelling internationally, they at least used to ask you what the purpose of your trip was, "business" or "pleasure". That's *way* creepier when border control in a foreign country asks you that, more so if they make you cram "visiting family" in one of those categories.

        I saw that as him not considering himself as being associated with a "business", so what's the opposite? "Pleasure"? Good as any opposite, I suppose, and it's a very common phrase. If governments have stopped sayin

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          The joke by itself is okay, but the cards offered the holder a "tender embrace". Not suitable for handing out at conferences to people with a professional interest in him. Maybe at a bar.

          https://www.reddit.com/r/justn... [reddit.com]

          • Re: (Score:1)

            by Anonymous Coward

            I wouldn't put it on my cards. Knowing the old school hippie tech crowd, that he's quite clearly part of, and their sometimes huggy-feely way of interacting, I don't see a problem with his cards. I'm quite sure that if I politely declined his offer of embrace he'd respect that. If you have a problem with his good intentions, the problem is you.

            It's no surprise that the people who hold that the eye of the beholder is the ultimate judge of all before him, and fuck anyone else's intentions, are generally seen

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by ChatHuant ( 801522 )

        the defence of Minsky.

        You're prejudging. As far as I know, there was no proof Minsky actually participated in any illegal acts; Virginia Giuffre said she was directed by Ghislaine Maxwell to have sex with Minsky, but not that she actually did (and there was no lawsuit against the Minsky estate). So Minsky appears to be at most guilty by association. Further, Stallman is at most guilty by second-hand association.

        Your statement is rather typical of the witch hunts led by the progressive left. People aren't allowed to defend friend

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          I'm not talking about him having sex with her. We don't know if that happened or not. I'm talking about continuing to associate with Epstein even after he had been convicted the first time. RMS then claims that Minsky might have thought being propositioned by a woman a fraction of his age on Epstein's infamous Island was perfectly consensual.

          It beggars belief. I appreciate he wants to protect his friend, but his friend's behaviour was reprehensible.

          • I'm talking about continuing to associate with Epstein even after he had been convicted the first time.

            So, guilt by association [wikipedia.org]. It's a logical fallacy, typical of authoritarians, and much loved by the progressive left. It's wrong, and attacks some of the basic pillars of democracy - again, something the progressive left seems eager to do (see their interpretation of the limits on freedom of speech).

            It beggars belief.

            Again, Minsky was not proven to have done anything illegal. And even if he had, Stallman has the right to express his opinions on the issue freely (freedom of speech, remember?). The fact you think he should apol

            • > So, guilt by association

              Nope. That's passive.

              RMS actively defended Minsky's 2011 trip to LSJ, after JE was a convicted felonious pedophile AND did nothing about the young girls who were providing sex to old men.

              JE was *also* known throughout the Boston academic community for the services and money he provided. That's why he had an office at Harvard. Let's not pretend that Minsky is stupid because that's the opposite of true.

              If it were just that RMS knew Minsky and people were coming after him for that,

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by I've Got Three Cats ( 4794043 )

        The problem with apologies is the credibility of the person demanding one. The professionally offended woke crowd may demand he apologise, but so what? What credibility do they have other than the implicit one granted by most people that anyone screaming murder must be on to something.

        I don't think Minsky needs to apologise anymore than Stallman.

        Your personal reaction to something is yours, not mine. I have no control over that so making me the locus of causation is irrational.

        If you want to be principle

    • To me, he doesn't have a "touch" of autism. He's pretty deep into the spectrum. That's why he rubs many people the wrong way, but if you actually look at the meaning to his words, he makes a lot of sense.

      • I am around the same place on the spectrum, more or less.

        I've found it necessary to avoid unnecessary interaction with other people, at least in person. But, increasingly, even online.

        Not suggesting that RMS or anyone else necessarily should, just that my own "social skills" are such that people are better off if they have to deal with me as little as possible.

        RMS, being vastly more intelligent than I am, has probably found better ways to interact with other people, but it doesn't surprise me in the least

    • Don't forget the nonsensical "transphobic" accusations about firing a transgender employee of the FSF who stopped doing her job when she started taking female hormones, just like Leah Rowe who raised the fuss stopped actually writing any code on her projects halfway through her transition year, which was also when she threw a hissy at Richard for firing her fellow transgender female.

    • Free software and underage nude enthusiast.

      "'Child pornography' might be a photo of yourself or your lover that the two of you shared," he wrote. "It might be an image of a sexually mature teenager that any normal adult would find attractive. What's heinous about having such a photo?"

      https://arstechnica.com/tech-p... [arstechnica.com]

      • Can you tell the difference between a 17 and 11 months and an 18 and 1 month in age difference by looking at a photo or video? If the person is over 18, then it's okay to be attracted to a teenager. If they are under 18, by a day, then it's not.

        That's essentially what is being said.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by Bert64 ( 520050 )

        People date in high school and in the modern age of smartphones people send nude photos to each other.
        If two 15 year olds share nude photos with each other, that's very different from a 40 year old soliciting photos from the same 15 year old.

        The law defines a hard line at 18, but there are far more shades of grey. What if two people in highschool are dating and they're in the same school year but a few months apart, one will turn 18 before the other - does that make the one who is at most a few months older

    • RMS is the living organism that spurs growth and development of free souls who make and bake freedom into the software they code. Sourdough starter for fluffy concepts that only need inspiration and the genesis of a self-will to actualize good bytes, as in healthy, for human consumption.

      Stallman is at the last part - consumption. Richard realizes people willingly sacrifice freedom for the security to pay for the privilege of consuming.

    • The left was fine with RMS until the Epstein scandals broke, RMS had the audacity to doubt that Minsky did anything wrong, and now RMS is radioactive. He must be cancelled, punished, and removed from polite society everywhere.

      I think the Epstein thing would have blown over if RMS didn't have a history of inappropriate comments [businessinsider.com].

      But I think the larger issue is his relationship with the FSF. He resigned from the Presidency and the board.... and then a year and a half later unresigned from the board with zero public notice.

      Is the FSF just a rubber stamp for whatever RMS wants to do? I think he's ineffective in his role because he's so out of touch with the community.

      Just look at his comments on Ubuntu. The complaint seems to be that

  • Lack of tutorials (Score:4)

    by DraconPern ( 521756 ) on Sunday April 17, 2022 @11:34AM (#62454288) Homepage
    There are no good tutorial on autoconf and PPA was my issue when I tried to publish something for Debian. When the eco system requires dedicated unpaid maintenaners just to publish a program, thatâ€(TM)s just a hassle no one wants to go through.

    • Wondering about this, I stumbled upon a series of great tutorials about autoconf. It doesn't seem that hard and I think I'll give it a try.

      see here [idryman.org]

      • This is part of the problem. No official documentation, and you have to rely on [usually outdated] forum posts and a random blog.

        I remember my first experience with Linux Mint. The download page offered you a choice of five ISOs, depending on which desktop environment you might need, and no instructions or link to utilities to "burn" the ISO to a flash drive. Hell, they didn't even have some screenshots or a link to the official forum on the homepage.

  • Legal changes (Score:1, Flamebait)

    by Okian Warrior ( 537106 )

    Regarding the OP, it sounds like there's an easy way to make everyone's lives easier: change the law.

    I remember when the original copyright law was passed/reworked, it was meant to prevent people from copying potentially valuable works (ie - books, newspaper articles, and the like) and making money from someone else's work.

    The copying thing was seen as a potential problem at the time, but also at the time software wasn't common and neither was digital media.

    Nowadays it seems like software might be a special

    • I will be very suprised indeed if you remember when the first copyright law was passed. It was written into the US constitution, based on older British and European laws dating back to the 1500's or even earlier.

      • I will be very suprised indeed if you remember when the first copyright law was passed. It was written into the US constitution

        I mentally autocorrected "I remember" in Okian Warrior's comment as "I remember reading historical accounts". Does it make more sense that way?

        based on older British and European laws dating back to the 1500's or even earlier.

        The Copyright Act 1710 in the Parliament of Great Britain (sometimes called the "Statute of Anne") was the first law I'm aware of that follows the modern paradigm of granting exclusive rights to a work's author. Previous regulations on printing presses appear to have been largely concerned with censorship of libel and sedition.

  • Containers are a wider problem (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nagora ( 177841 ) on Sunday April 17, 2022 @11:37AM (#62454298)

    Containers are a problem already because it's not easy to audit them for security issues, nor is it always easy to do anything about them if they exist. That's before we get into questions of efficiency or licencing complications.

    Containers are a solution to a very small number of real problems. Unfortunately, they're also the solution to the question "what's the easiest way to just deploy some shit without thinking about what I'm doing or whether I'm doing it right?" and that gets lapped up enthusiastically by lazy managers and administrators.

    • Re:Containers are a wider problem (Score:5, Insightful)

      by serafean ( 4896143 ) on Sunday April 17, 2022 @02:20PM (#62454610)

      > what's the easiest way to just deploy some shit without thinking about what I'm doing or whether I'm doing it right?

      I have seen this described as:
      - Boss, it works on my machine!
      - Lets ship your machine then...

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by nagora ( 177841 )

        > what's the easiest way to just deploy some shit without thinking about what I'm doing or whether I'm doing it right?

        I have seen this described as:
        - Boss, it works on my machine!
        - Lets ship your machine then...

        I have actually seen that last one once.

    • Re:Containers are a wider problem (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Tom ( 822 ) on Monday April 18, 2022 @12:44AM (#62455702) Homepage Journal

      Containers are a problem already because it's not easy to audit them for security issues, nor is it always easy to do anything about them if they exist.

      This.

      InfoSec is my job. I've been saying for a while that stuff like docker and snaps are going to bring us nightmares sometime down the road. And it's not just outdated libraries:

      Unfortunately, they're also the solution to the question "what's the easiest way to just deploy some shit without thinking about what I'm doing or whether I'm doing it right?" and that gets lapped up enthusiastically by lazy managers and administrators.

      Exactly, here's the problem. If you are a sysadmin, raise your hand if you've ever discovered a problem with some software while deploying and configuring it. Yeah, I think that's everyone (if your hand is down, you've not been a serious sysadmin for long). Lots of crap and shortcuts the devs took come up when you install the thing on a brand-new server. This breaks, that doesn't work, why is this hardcoded?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Bert64 ( 520050 )

        Exactly this, and yet you see MANY people in the infosec field actually advocating for containers and publishing tools where using something like docker is the recommended installation method.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Tom ( 822 )

          Yeah, people also still recommend your password should have special characters. No field is without its bundle of the clueless.

    • Containers are a solution to a very small number of real problems.

      Notably, additional layers of complexity and even more packages for end users to maintain. Those things tend to make security even more complicated.

  • I proposed this in 2001 on gnu.misc.discuss... (Score:4, Informative)

    by Paul Fernhout ( 109597 ) on Sunday April 17, 2022 @11:51AM (#62454324) Homepage

    "License management tools: good, bad, or ugly?"
    https://groups.google.com/g/gn... [google.com]
    "INTRODUCTION: I've read Richard Stallman's "right-to-read" essay.
    http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/... [gnu.org]
    I've also seen the public outcry over hard disks which would include
    license management features.
    http://slashdot.org/articles/0... [slashdot.org]
          I definitely do not want to see a future world of only proprietary
    intellectual property where basically everything I want to do requires
    agreeing to endless licenses and royalty payments, such as described in
    "right-to-read". My wife and I released a six person-year effort under
    the GPL (a garden simulator application) around 1997 ... so I am obviously
    sympathetic to encouraging free sharing of some information and allowing derived works of some things.
          However, on a practical basis, living in our society as it is right now,
    any software developer is going to handle lots of packets of information
    from emails to applications to program modules under a variety of
    explicit or implied licenses. If a developer is going to do this in a
    way that makes his or her work most useful to the community (under the
    terms he or she so chooses), proper attention must be given to the
    licensing status of all works received and distributed, especially those
    that form the basis for new derived works to be distributed. Note that
    even in the case of purely GPL'd works, one still needs to know that a
    user contributing an extension to a GPL'd work was the original author
    and/or he or she has permission to distribute the patch (if say an
    employer owns all the contributor's work).
          My question is: should software tools, protocols, and standards play a
    role in easing this required "due diligence" ... license management work
    (at least as far as copyright alone is concerned)? ..."

    It went on from there, and there were a few replies.

  • # make install freedom

    # no such file or directory

  • Personally, I think proprietary software often encourages innovation through profit motive. Apple made lots of money on iOS and then open-ish source Android combined iOS innovations with freedom to tinker. Works both ways, Android now has innovative features that iOS does not and Linux had power user functionality in the 90s that took Windows and MacOS a decade to catch up with.

    Also, I would never release my own stuff under GPL. As a developer, I sympathize with other developers and don't want them to have

  • I guess he doesn't use Gentoo. (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    I doubt anyone comes as close to Gentoo when it comes to handling of licenses. Here's a sample of licenses that portage packages can have on my system.
    ACCEPT_LICENSE="dlj-1.1 Oracle-BCLA-JavaSE GIMPS Gameplay-Group-EULA Intel-SDP Google-TOS google-chrome MPEG-4 bh-luxi all-rights-reserved linux-fw-redistributable no-source-code CC-Sampling-Plus-1.0 free-noncomm unRAR freedist NPSL PassMark-EULA CC-BY-NC-SA-2.5 BitstreamCyberbit"

  • His opinions are much closer to those whom you call SJW than they are to your opinions.

  • Paywalled packages, plugins and distros do not belong to the open source library. There should be some oversight before a company decides that is all theirs.

  • From the article:

    > Many scams were related to bogus cryptocurrency investments.

    Is there any cryptocurrency that is not fundamentally a scam? It's unsurprising that it's prone to fraud, since at their core they were designed to evade government oversight.

Slashdot Top Deals

The most difficult thing in the world is to know how to do a thing and to watch someone else doing it wrong, without commenting. -- T.H. White

Close