- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
The Free Software hardliner, the corporation, and the shotgun wedding
|
|
|
Comments (30)
10 earlier comments in the full thread.
Ok, here is the full story, just in case anyone is interested. I guess I was.
http://www.livius.org/fa-fn/fasces/fasces.html
"Fasces: set of rods bound in the form of a bundle which contained an axe. In ancient Rome, the bodyguards of a magistrate carried fasces."
and...
"The use of fasces by the Italian dictator Benito Mussolini is quite another story. In 1921, he called his political movement Fasci di combattimento, fascio being the Italian word for peasant organizations and labor unions. When il duce chose the ancient Roman fasces as symbol of the fascist party, he was at the same time playing with the similarity of the words fascio and fasces, chosing an ancient symbol, and drawing a parallel between fascism and progressive movements of the past."
http://www.livius.org/fa-fn/fasces/fasces.html
"Fasces: set of rods bound in the form of a bundle which contained an axe. In ancient Rome, the bodyguards of a magistrate carried fasces."
and...
"The use of fasces by the Italian dictator Benito Mussolini is quite another story. In 1921, he called his political movement Fasci di combattimento, fascio being the Italian word for peasant organizations and labor unions. When il duce chose the ancient Roman fasces as symbol of the fascist party, he was at the same time playing with the similarity of the words fascio and fasces, chosing an ancient symbol, and drawing a parallel between fascism and progressive movements of the past."
Note: This view represents my own, not LXer's
Since there's not a single accepted definition of the term 'fascism' and since fascism in the beginning (1919 manifesto) meant something else than later on, there can only be confusion about this term, as can be seen in this thread.
Therefore, I suggest referring to Computing Fascism isn't a good idea at all - except that it certainly serves as a flamebait for off-topic discussions - as what's being referred to by Fascism is not clear. Pointing (by means of linking) to one possible explanation of 'fascism' doesn't cause everybody to forget about ones own view of fascism. Also, it is easily possible people can be offended or grieved if they or others are referred to as 'Computer Fascists'. Because we don't want LXer readers to start discussions in violation of TOS, flamebaits, off-topic discussions and because we don't want them to grieve or offend other readers, I think it's better to avoid the term fascism and indeed point to 'the properties one suppose fascism has' than using the term fascism itself.
I see where Azerthot is pointing at: Some of fascism's supposed properties in the article he links to are also applicable to Free Software, in Azerthot's view. However, not all of the properties of the article linked to are applicable to Free Software. I think (but I'm not the boss, Scott is, and he may decide to do whatever with this thread he thinks is best) it's OK to discuss the properties claimed by the article linked to, and Free Software. I assume that's Azerthot's intention anyway.
Therefore, I think it's good to distillate the properties of the article linked to - like 'male supremacy' or 'populism' and see if they are applicable to Free Software. I'd say at least the two I mentioned are not. However, some other properties are applicable to Free Software, like 'a myth of rebirth after a period of decline or destruction'. When RMS started Free Software, the university he worked for tried to decline or destruct the free availability of sourcecode. Purging 'alien forces' is also one of the things which sometimes happens in the 'Free Software' world, but that's not a unique property of Free Software, it happens in proprietary firms and in the BSD world too.
Since there's not a single accepted definition of the term 'fascism' and since fascism in the beginning (1919 manifesto) meant something else than later on, there can only be confusion about this term, as can be seen in this thread.
Therefore, I suggest referring to Computing Fascism isn't a good idea at all - except that it certainly serves as a flamebait for off-topic discussions - as what's being referred to by Fascism is not clear. Pointing (by means of linking) to one possible explanation of 'fascism' doesn't cause everybody to forget about ones own view of fascism. Also, it is easily possible people can be offended or grieved if they or others are referred to as 'Computer Fascists'. Because we don't want LXer readers to start discussions in violation of TOS, flamebaits, off-topic discussions and because we don't want them to grieve or offend other readers, I think it's better to avoid the term fascism and indeed point to 'the properties one suppose fascism has' than using the term fascism itself.
I see where Azerthot is pointing at: Some of fascism's supposed properties in the article he links to are also applicable to Free Software, in Azerthot's view. However, not all of the properties of the article linked to are applicable to Free Software. I think (but I'm not the boss, Scott is, and he may decide to do whatever with this thread he thinks is best) it's OK to discuss the properties claimed by the article linked to, and Free Software. I assume that's Azerthot's intention anyway.
Therefore, I think it's good to distillate the properties of the article linked to - like 'male supremacy' or 'populism' and see if they are applicable to Free Software. I'd say at least the two I mentioned are not. However, some other properties are applicable to Free Software, like 'a myth of rebirth after a period of decline or destruction'. When RMS started Free Software, the university he worked for tried to decline or destruct the free availability of sourcecode. Purging 'alien forces' is also one of the things which sometimes happens in the 'Free Software' world, but that's not a unique property of Free Software, it happens in proprietary firms and in the BSD world too.
Quoting:From a business perspective, Open Source gives short shrift to free software's strongest selling points. Focus on the source turns free software into a technical issue instead of a strategic one.
Unless I misread that, you, not I brought business concerns into the conversation in such a manner that the concerns of business are in some way superior. Nor, do I notice now why a strategic decision should be made on a moral basis while over the technical. You yourself have pointed out that technical is defensible while intent and morality is a much more slippery slope.
Granted that a meeting with Netscape was the impetus in part for the term Open Source, you fail to mention that it was also to separate from "the moralizing and confrontational attitude" of the FSF. Those aren't my words but the words of Todd Anderson, John "maddog" Hall, Larry Augustin, Michael Tiemann, and Eric Raymond.
Your second point actually strengthens my position. The GPLv3 does indeed make adjustments pertaining to business practices, in further limiting them from a wholly moralistic viewpoint, namely the "Tivo Clause". In which they ignore the technical, that it is possible to code for that hardware from an Open Source or Free Software position, Linus did it for the original Linux Kernel. However for the FSF it was easier to legislate (for lack of a better word) around the issue.
In discussing the matter with the leadership of the FSF, I'm glad you had that opportunity, how ever it in no way validates your argument. Of course you are going to hear things that coincide with your stated stance as it aligns with your own. If you hadn't noticed it is the FSF that condones and supports a moralistic stance to the exclusion of any technical argument, the perpetrators of Computing Fascism. It's the same reason I listen to Glenn Beck, because he says things that make sense to me that I agree with, it doesn't make either he or I correct.
As to your parting comment, I prefer to think for myself than be swayed by moralistic rhetoric, and the difference between Open Source and Free Software is that rhetoric.
hkwint, as I stated previously, it was not my intent to enter into a debate over the word as it is traditionally inflammatory. The included link was wholly so that there would be a way for readers to see the actual manner in which the word was used, instead of relying upon the generally distasteful and often misused meanings of the word itself.
jdixon offered an excellent secondary source of reference.
jdixon offered an excellent secondary source of reference.
azerthoth -
Get out your dictionary, if needed, and try to comprehend the following sentence:
>My reasons probably differ from most, however:
Get out your dictionary, if needed, and try to comprehend the following sentence:
>My reasons probably differ from most, however:
I agree with hkwint that 'fascism' has no single definition and is almost always used inaccurately, especially when used in 'name calling' or as 'flamebait' to get under someone's skin.
I think sticking to the technical terms, whether they are as accurate or correct as we would like, are the way to go.
Using political or religious terms either alone or in conjunction with technical terms to describe something or someone in a technical conversation seems at its minimum ( used in a non-derogatory way ), inappropriate and at its maximum ( in a derogatory way ), blatantly disrespectful.
Obviously there is a huge gray area on this, adverbs are plentiful and who here hasn't combined terms in a creative ways all there life, I do it all the time. I know that I can think of all kinds of examples where divergent terms are used to describe or name things and people. But I go back to my minimum and maximum definition.
It doesn't seem right to use them purposely in a negative and/or disrespectful manner towards who you are talking to or what you a talking about.
I think sticking to the technical terms, whether they are as accurate or correct as we would like, are the way to go.
Using political or religious terms either alone or in conjunction with technical terms to describe something or someone in a technical conversation seems at its minimum ( used in a non-derogatory way ), inappropriate and at its maximum ( in a derogatory way ), blatantly disrespectful.
Obviously there is a huge gray area on this, adverbs are plentiful and who here hasn't combined terms in a creative ways all there life, I do it all the time. I know that I can think of all kinds of examples where divergent terms are used to describe or name things and people. But I go back to my minimum and maximum definition.
It doesn't seem right to use them purposely in a negative and/or disrespectful manner towards who you are talking to or what you a talking about.
> I think it's good to distillate the properties of the article linked to - like 'male supremacy' or 'populism' and see if they are applicable to Free Software.
Well, given the dominance of males in the FOSS development world, and the numerous complaints about the reception women receive there, I think a case for male supremacy could be made. I don't think it's a valid case, but it would be possible to make one.
I agree with Scott and hkwint that using the term fascism in reference to anything other than a political movement which directly tries to link itself to the older fascist movements is probably a mistake (I can't see one coming about, but anything is possible). While the term is a powerful one (mostly due to the lingering memories of World War II), it has been so misused over the years that it's lost any clear meaning.
Well, given the dominance of males in the FOSS development world, and the numerous complaints about the reception women receive there, I think a case for male supremacy could be made. I don't think it's a valid case, but it would be possible to make one.
I agree with Scott and hkwint that using the term fascism in reference to anything other than a political movement which directly tries to link itself to the older fascist movements is probably a mistake (I can't see one coming about, but anything is possible). While the term is a powerful one (mostly due to the lingering memories of World War II), it has been so misused over the years that it's lost any clear meaning.
I am of course open to alternatives that describe and include the stated goals of the subjugation and domination of a specific subset of the economy and population. All the while proclaiming to redress a fictitious moral wrong.
Not to be rude or combative on the topic, short of another word that represents that philosophy, I believe I used it correctly. It was not aimed at Dinotrac nor intended to be taken as such, it was used to accurately and succinctly summarize the publicly stated goals of the FSF and RMS.
Not to be rude or combative on the topic, short of another word that represents that philosophy, I believe I used it correctly. It was not aimed at Dinotrac nor intended to be taken as such, it was used to accurately and succinctly summarize the publicly stated goals of the FSF and RMS.
> I am of course open to alternatives that describe and include the stated goals of the subjugation and domination of a specific subset of the economy and population.
Authoritarian and Totalitarian work fairly well.
> All the while proclaiming to redress a fictitious moral wrong.
That's an oversimplification. The wrong has to have some basis in reality for people to buy into it, tenuous though it may be.
Authoritarian and Totalitarian work fairly well.
> All the while proclaiming to redress a fictitious moral wrong.
That's an oversimplification. The wrong has to have some basis in reality for people to buy into it, tenuous though it may be.
>The wrong has to have some basis in reality for people to buy into it, tenuous though it may be.
But the wrong does not actually have to be committed by the targets of the anger.
The Nazis made scapegoats of the Jews for very real wrongs resulting from the ruinously punitive terms of the armistice ending WWI.
But the wrong does not actually have to be committed by the targets of the anger.
The Nazis made scapegoats of the Jews for very real wrongs resulting from the ruinously punitive terms of the armistice ending WWI.
Don't forget, that Hitler knew what he was saying was complete BS too (ironically enough, he was half Jewish if memory serves......).
So, shall we invoke the Law of Godwin yet?
So, shall we invoke the Law of Godwin yet?
Quoting:So, shall we invoke the Law of Godwin yet?
That won't work. See Quirk's Exception: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law#Corollaries_and_us...
Instead, I suggest we simply drag the discussion back on topic :-)
From the Wikipedia article..
That's my kind of three word description!
Now if I had just read that article before writing my post..
it would have been a lot shorter.
:-)
Quoting:inappropriate hyperbolic comparisons
That's my kind of three word description!
Now if I had just read that article before writing my post..
it would have been a lot shorter.
:-)
> But the wrong does not actually have to be committed by the targets of the anger.
I was thinking of adding that, but couldn't come up with any reasonable (everything I tried came out too garbled) way of saying it. Thanks Dino.
I was thinking of adding that, but couldn't come up with any reasonable (everything I tried came out too garbled) way of saying it. Thanks Dino.
Its my birthday.
>Its my birthday.
Happy birthday to you, Happy birthday to you. Happy birthday, deal Colonel. Happy birthday to you!!
Now blow out the candles and make a wish.
On my birthday, I wished for enough wind to blow out the candles.
Happy birthday to you, Happy birthday to you. Happy birthday, deal Colonel. Happy birthday to you!!
Now blow out the candles and make a wish.
On my birthday, I wished for enough wind to blow out the candles.
> Its my birthday.
Best wishes for this one and many more.
Best wishes for this one and many more.
> Its my birthday.
I hope it was wonderful. Many more!
I hope it was wonderful. Many more!
Just remember to check the fire ordinances for next year, there may be something about THAT many candles in one place and time constituting a bonfire and needing a burn permit.
happy b-day.
happy b-day.
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
The word "fascism" comes from the same root as "faggot" being a bundle of sticks. It comes from the Roman symbol of the collective, a bundle of sticks and an axe tied into a bunch, all together for the common good. You can see an example of this symbol in this picture, bottom left, being held by a figure that looks a lot like Mussolini: http://www.bigheadpress.com/tpbtgn?page=100
Darn, it comes through much better in the hard-copy book. Oh well. Can't think of another picture off the top of my head. {edit: on the right side of the en.wikipedia page on fascism, there's a picture. who'd'a thunk it?}
Fascism also has an economic definition, titular ownership of private property under tight control by a central authority (government).
So in a way, Microsoft software is fascist. Oh sure, you paid for it, but you don't actually own it. Microsoft owns it, and sets all the terms of its use. I've always been the most disgusted by the fact that you're not "allowed" to test it and publish benchmarks.
What Microsoft does doesn't directly effect me anyway, because they can't make me buy it or use it. As long as that remains the case, we can continue to have such discussions over semantics.