>Publicly take back Microsoft's attacks on copyleft made in the 2000s. Ballmer called the GPL a "cancer". Allchin called it "un-American".<p>(from the "Suggestions I gave to Microsoft" section)<p>This is something I agree with. I don't think that Microsoft are likely to apologise for EEE [1] as that is likely just considered 'business' and part of the zeitgeist; neither do I think that Microsoft necessarily needs to endorse or support GPL as they are definitely unlikely to be using it for any products for the foreseeable.<p>They should, however, be a bit more repentant about starting a McCarthy-esque red scare against all things open source. I don't think those things were appropriate at the time and they really should at the very least be acknowledged as part of the "Microsoft heart Linux" initiative.<p>Part of me, though, thinks that Microsoft's recent adventures in Linux have been more 'Black Friday' than 'Good Friday'.<p>[1] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace%2C_extend%2C_and_extinguish" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace%2C_extend%2C_and_extin...</a>
> Implement an anonymous internet sales platform that doesn't require Javascript, using GNU Taler (taler.net).<p>That seems like a potentially super important project yet it does not have a wikipedia page. That's abnormal! It was even discussed here in 2017!<p><a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15274110" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15274110</a>
I somehow want to quote this too:<p>> Direct GitHub to promote correct and clear use of licenses and the best use of copyleft (GPL version 3-or-later).<p>I remember when I was very green, that list of licenses on the GitHub repository creation page is very very confusing to me. I don't know which is which and which one I should use, and most importantly, what's the effect of my choice.<p>It could be great if GitHub can improve that list a bit to help people to make wiser choice before a repository is created.
> Help make the web usable with Javascript deactivated.<p>I don't quite understand why that is a goal in itself. If it's due to accessibility why not ask to "Help make the web more usable for people with disabilities"? Maybe I'm missing something here.
I'm usually the first to shit on Stallman but I really liked his suggestions here.<p>But hypothetically if Microsoft fully implements all of what RMS suggested would Windows be listed as an approved distro on gnu.org?<p><a href="https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-non-gnu-distros.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-non-gnu-distros.html</a><p><a href="https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guideli...</a>
> Direct GitHub to promote correct and clear use of licenses and the best use of copyleft (GPL version 3-or-later).<p>Ehhhh... I very much like that my source code repository host isn't consistently nudging me to a specific license, thanks :).
Free software is difficult. I have a family and young kids to feed. I can't work for FREE. I have open-source packages that are "free", but that's my hobby or a living. If you get a professorship at a university then you can flog free software, but it doesn't work for the other 99.99999% of the population. Sigh. I wish open-soure software is funded like universities. European Union funds some software, but more should be done. The economy of free software is a classific economics problems; too many free loaders. We can't continue to rely on volunteers. The public needs to fund open-source software, just like how to we fund universities!
> And one other suggestion, which I made to a vice president but perhaps not in my talk.<p>><p>> Release the source code of Windows under the GNU GPL.<p>><p>> I know that is a stretch, but from what I heard there. it isn't totally impossible.<p>I do not remember who or where exactly it was, but i remember someone influential from Microsoft that was asked about open sourcing Windows (not necessarily under GPL) and they also said that it isn't totally impossible.
> There are those who think that Microsoft invited me to speak in the hope of seducing me away from the free software cause.<p>> Others assert that inviting me was opposition research and nothing more.<p>Honestly, why would Microsoft in 2019 even need to either convince RMS to give up free software or to research him at all?
> I am no easy mark for those who want me to change my views.<p>This is an absolute lie. I know for a fact he has cancelled talks he's agreed to after being contacted by various factions of activists.
<i>> Help fight against copyright on interfaces.</i><p>MS infamously supported Oracle in pushing copyrightability of interfaces. Did they ever announce the reversal of their position?<p>To his points, I'd add:<p>* Stop pushing lock-in, and support open interoperable standards.<p>This has improved in some cases with MS, but in some it remains as bad before (ActiveSync, DirectX and etc.)
Interestingly, this is not the first time that I've heard Microsoft talk about open-sourcing Windows [0]. The licensing behind many of the components may make it a distant pipe dream, but since they make most of their money through their applications (i.e. MSSQL runs on Linux now, the software teams all work under Azure now), I could see it happening sometime.<p>[0]: <a href="https://www.wired.com/2015/04/microsoft-open-source-windows-definitely-possible/" rel="nofollow">https://www.wired.com/2015/04/microsoft-open-source-windows-...</a>
> Help make the web usable with Javascript deactivated.<p>I agree with RMS here, in that user privacy is aligned closely with user freedom. I also believe the Internet is losing ground on this point.
In case anyone else was wondering about when this was published, as I was, this was published on RMS's site today:<p><a href="https://www.stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html#23_September_2019_(Microsoft)" rel="nofollow">https://www.stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html#23_Septe...</a>
>Release the source code of Windows under the GNU GPL.<p>>I know that is a stretch, but from what I heard there. it isn't totally impossible.<p>Really? Does anyone have more info about that?
> Help fight against copyright on interfaces.<p>This one puzzles me. I thought patents were the big threat for UIs? Or is he talking about copyrighted APIs?
Linked from tfa: <a href="https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/microsoft.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/microsoft.html</a><p>>we do recognize [Microsoft] as the company that has separated more users from their freedom than any other<p>Is this still true in the age of the iPhone?
Some clunky writing here:<p>> it isn't totally impossible.<p>> so we can run them without any nonfree software<p>Edit: removed my suggestions