Stallman is 100% correct
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| devnet Jan 06, 2006 5:12 AM EDT |
"Yet when our world finally comes to understand the power and danger of code—when it finally sees that code, like laws, or like government, must be transparent to be free—then we will look back at this uncompromising and persistent programmer and recognize the vision he has fought to make real: the vision of a world where freedom and knowledge survives the compiler. And we will come to see that no man, through his deeds or words, has done as much to make possible the freedom that this next society could have. We have not earned that freedom yet. We may well fail in securing it. But whether we succeed or fail, in these essays is a picture of what that freedom could be. And in the life that produced these words and works, there is inspiration for anyone who would, like Stallman, fight to create this freedom." Lawrence Lessig Professor of Law, Stanford Law School. --------------------------------------------------------------- Someday, perhaps, people will understand what Stallman is really about. The only thing you have to do is look at his philosophy without bias. This is more difficult than anyone can perceive. Just as you mention Paul and the other apostles as uncompromising, so are today's digerati...stuck in their own concepts of free and open source software. One can look at this just like one can look at the church (used generally to encompass Christianity)...Paul, Peter, and the first century Christians were uncompromising in their faith (as Stallman is uncompromising on his "faith/philosophy"). They had an unbiased and pure view of what Christianity truly is...they worshiped one God alone not a triune Godhead and there were clear lines that defined what Christianity is...lines today that are generally ignored by Christians. Thus, because Christians do not practice Christianity as those 1st century Christians did, Christianity is polluted and the message falls on deaf ears and people debate on what Christianity should be, just as today's view on what Free and Open Source Software is debated and Stallman's message falls on deaf ears. Someday perhaps everyone will snap out of it. Devnet |
| jimf Jan 06, 2006 7:53 AM EDT |
Well true "the philosophical element of libre software cannot be ignored" and the aspects of FOSS and the GPL are a serious ethical, legal, and political issues which need to be discussed and addressed. But when you talk about 'faith', and 'uncompromising', and start treating the subject as religious dogma, you enter into the realm of the fanatic, and, demonstrate why many don't give Stallman much credence. Sorry Derrick, frankly, it just creeps me out. |
| devnet Jan 06, 2006 8:46 AM EDT |
No problem Jim... It creeps me out too :) |
| gnufan Jan 06, 2006 8:55 AM EDT |
Considering Stallman is an atheist, I find the biblical metaphors quite amusing, but nevermind that - just a random thought. Though I do agree with most of what has been said here, I can't see that it will ever be possible to push the philosophy of a few, on to the many who just jumped up on the bandwagon. |
| jimf Jan 06, 2006 9:02 AM EDT |
gnufan, Atheism is as much a religion as any other :) |
| gnufan Jan 06, 2006 9:31 AM EDT |
jimf - Atheism has never been a religion. An atheist may be religious though. No more off-topic chatter from me. |
| jdixon Jan 06, 2006 10:06 AM EDT |
> Atheism has never been a religion... It may not be a religion (the point can be argued), but it is as much a belief system as any religion is. |
| jimf Jan 06, 2006 10:35 AM EDT |
jdixon, exactly. |
| gnufan Jan 06, 2006 11:34 AM EDT |
> It may not be a religion (the point can be argued), but it is as much a belief system as any religion is. http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/belief.htm - IS ATHEISM A BELIEF? Had I known that my observation would spawn a pseudo philosophical debate on the definition of atheism, I wouldn't have posted it at all. I apologize to all who've witnessed this. |
| jdixon Jan 06, 2006 1:06 PM EDT |
> IS ATHEISM A BELIEF? The definition of atheism they're offering doesn't seem to match the one in common usage. The common definition is one who does not accept the existence of a supreme being (i.e., God). Whether or not you believe in the supernatural as a generic concept, unicorns, or UFO's has nothing to do with it. The definition they're offering is actually closer to that of the agnostic, who merely claims that he does not know if a supreme being exists or not. I consider the agnosticism to be the only valid intellectual position, since by definition a supreme being could make it impossible to prove his existence. Fortunately, we do not live by intellect alone. |
| alc Jan 06, 2006 1:08 PM EDT |
"Had I known that my observation would spawn a pseudo philosophical debate on the definition of atheism, I wouldn't have posted it at all. I apologize to all who've witnessed this." Sometimes philosophical debate gets us looking at things that we wouldn't otherwise think about.I can't speak for anyone other than myself,but I see no reason for you to apologize. |
| dcparris Jan 06, 2006 1:29 PM EDT |
Frankly, I had hoped for more discussion around the GNU philosophy than around a religious debate. It's true that many "just jumped on the bandwagon". That doesn't mean they shouldn't be taught why there is a bandwagon to jump on. I was one of the folks who just jumped on the bandwagon - quite literally as a freeloader. It was only after I decided I needed to learn more so I could write about this stuff that I began to explore the meaning of it all. As I began to read Stallman's writings, I realized I had never even considered whether agreeing to a EULA could be either good or bad. I just accepted that was the way things were. So, I've come a long way myself. |
| jimf Jan 06, 2006 2:11 PM EDT |
"I realized I had never even considered whether agreeing to a EULA could be either good or bad." Suprised you had to go to Stallman... Just reading the EULA is enough to get you to realize it's just 'wrong'. As soon as I realized I had a choice, I was out of there. But then, few people do read a EULA, they just click on the agree button. |
| sharkscott Jan 06, 2006 4:18 PM EDT |
Here is my attempt to get this thing on track. :-) The first Christians believed that through Jesus they were one with or had direct access to God. It was through their belief in Jesus that it was true for them. It is similar to Stallman's concept in that he believes that the user should be one with or have direct access to the creator of the software. I may find Stallman hard to swallow every once in a while but I do agree with him on this issue. If he doesn't make a stand, no one will. |
| dcparris Jan 06, 2006 5:01 PM EDT |
jimf, I never read the agreements in their entirety. Like most users, I just agreed so I could use the software. Glad I'm awake now. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!