bring on the RMS-bashers
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| tuxchick2 May 25, 2006 4:08 PM EDT |
This article is notable mainly for the numbers of RMS-haters it brings out of the woodwork. Truly bizarre; none of them dispute anything in the article, but rant about how he should just shut up and go away. I suspect an astroturf campaign. |
| jimf May 25, 2006 5:06 PM EDT |
Unlike some of Stallman's writings, I found that to be very concise, understandable, and informative. Perhaps the best explanation yet of what the Sun Java thing is really about. |
| dinotrac May 25, 2006 6:21 PM EDT |
This really grinds my gears. Stallman's note is correct, to the point, and completely free of whacko nonsense. That's a terrible thing he's done to me. The flame key was all loaded and ready to go -- but Stallman is both right and reasonable. Man! What if my hands explode? |
| dcparris May 25, 2006 6:54 PM EDT |
You know, I understand Stallman can be, um, inflexible? Anyway, if you actually read what he writes, it makes sense. What's happened is that his instance on "GNU/Linux" has earned him enemies. I don't begrudge him that he wants people to know about the GNU project. What kind of advocate would he be if he did not work to promote the relevance of his own project? No one else seems willing to say much about it, yet they use his tools all the time. Still, people need to get over it and listen to what the guy has to say. Whether or not you agree with his position, he frequently says a lot of smart things. Remember, it was Stallman - not Torvalds - who guaranteed the freedom we enjoy today. Linus chose the GPL, but did not design it. Nor would he have been likely to design a copyleft. Wasn't he planning on releasing it under a proprietary license? So paying attention to what Stallman has to say is a fairly wise thing to do. That's just my thoughts. |
| gemlog May 25, 2006 7:39 PM EDT |
OK. After my newly discovered 'addiction' to these forums last weekend, I logged off, but I can't let this go by. RMS *is* a bit odd. I've had more than a couple of email exchanges with him and after my first one I knew I was *way* out of my league. Odd yes, but brilliant -- and the founder of our feast. I wish people would cut him some slack. After the 'war' (which he defined and won), people don't seem to appreciate the fruits of that victory and focus on his personality instead. Me? I would hate to have to seriously debate him in public. |
| keithcu May 25, 2006 8:17 PM EDT |
I sent RMS a few e-mails over this and other stuff. He appears to not be aware that Sun's CEO has publicly committed to making Java Open Source. A big part of the reason why their new distro license is such good news is because its a quick intermediate step; releasing everything as Open Source will take months to sort through. |
| tuxchick2 May 25, 2006 8:51 PM EDT |
Actually he does address Sun's future plans in the article: "...we should save our appreciation for the day that actually occurs." He's not criticizing Sun, he's wondering why they're getting applause for not really doing anything. |
| dcparris May 25, 2006 8:53 PM EDT |
>Me? I would hate to have to seriously debate him in public. You betchya! I can agree he is eccentric and has a brilliant mind. He reviewed my book, and we talked on the phone about an issue that took place in Indiana. He sounds different than I expected, but I can understand the stubbornness. I am too, so I don't mind. ;-) > He appears to not be aware that Sun's CEO has publicly committed to making Java Open Source. He is fully aware of that. He is simply hesitant to hand out the congrats until he sees it actually happen. Remember, they've done this before. I remember the IT guys I work with telling me that Sun had already open sourced Java. Oops. Besides, Sun can still release Java under terms he doesn't approve of. I hope for their sake they make it an FSF-approved license, like they did with Solaris. He may grant the approval grudglingly, but he will approve it if it meets the standard. |
| gemlog May 25, 2006 9:10 PM EDT |
>>Me? I would hate to have to seriously debate him in public. >>You betchya! I can agree he is eccentric and has a brilliant mind. He reviewed >>my book, and we talked on the phone about an issue that I haven't bothered him for a couple of years, but I recall that my first email to him 6-8 yrs ago was replied by 2 (3?) emails, as he immediately took apart my muddled logic and broke it up into different points and emails. I've tried to learn from his example to me, but... Ah well. Thing is, I can stand by whilst ppl call him freak, strange, weird or any number of similar adjectives, but anything that implies that he's stupid or didn't contribute much is dead wrong. |
| mvermeer May 25, 2006 11:16 PM EDT |
Stallman isn't just eccentric, he is suffering from (a fairly mild form of) the Asperger syndrome, a form of autism. And he knows it.
His self-humor is remarkable: the title of his article is a parody on that of a novel by Mark Haddon, the first person main character of which is a 15 years old aspie. http://mostlyfiction.com/contemp/haddon.htm ...and of course he is brilliant. Aspergers have to be, in order to manage in a society of human beings that are effectively aliens to them. Exaggerating, but not by much. |
| keithcu May 26, 2006 12:09 AM EDT |
I repeat what I said before, that I believe RMS was not aware of Sun's CEO's statement that Java will be made Open Source, "not a matter of if, but how." RMS said: "Some believe that this non-incident represents Sun's exploratory steps towards eventually releasing its Java platform as free software" No, it is not this incident which makes people think Sun will release Java as free software, but actually Sun's statement that they will release it as free software. |
| ClamIAm May 26, 2006 12:36 AM EDT |
Bram Cohen (creator of Bittorrent) also has Asperger's. Also also, in my experience, people with "real" Autism are pretty brilliant as well. |
| gemlog May 26, 2006 1:15 AM EDT |
Hmm. Well, Asperger's seems to fit perfectly, but the facts remain: he's made a significant contribution and defined a way of doing code, which the whole planet enjoys. It's too bad, but I think you are correct. |
| jimf May 26, 2006 1:52 AM EDT |
The question then comes to mind, 'Do people with Asperger's have a more solid view of reality than the rest of us ?'... I don't really want to know the answer to that one. |
| mvermeer May 26, 2006 2:54 AM EDT |
> 'Do people with Asperger's have a more solid view of reality than the rest of us ?'
> I don't really want to know the answer to that one. Perhaps you don't, but it's an interesting question to ask. I think that where material reality is concerned, there is no difference. The difference comes in the interaction with human beings. In all of us is built in the gift of compassion, of being able to step into another person's shoes and imagining what he must be feeling. Or guessing why he is saying samething, and usually guessing right. It is this skill, a virtual reality simulator if you like for what goes on inside other peoples' heads, that makes most social situations 'just work' on an intuitive level. Aspergers lack this. Perhaps the notion that aspies are highly gifted stems from those aspies that have 'made it', doing so by compensating intellectually, by building models in their heads of other people's behaviour and motives. Only the best manage this, but they walk on their toes all the time, which is very visible. People with an anti-intellectual streak -- i.e., most people -- are irritated to no end by this, often without knowing why. |
| wizz33 May 26, 2006 5:13 AM EDT |
as an Asperger/Autist my self. i thank you for this very good discription mvermeer |
| mvermeer May 26, 2006 11:17 AM EDT |
wizz33: how do you guess I know all this ;-) |
| grouch May 27, 2006 5:52 AM EDT |
keithcu: >"No, it is not this incident which makes people think Sun will release Java as free software, but actually Sun's statement that they will release it as free software." I'll believe it when I can read the license that makes it so. Sun has a history of what has been called corporate schizophrenia. (Please don't try to make that fit a clinical definition, though. :) |
| Bob_Robertson May 27, 2006 11:58 AM EDT |
The only place I disagree with RMS is that if he could "write the rules", it would be illegal to release code that was not Libre. That's it. Every functional point, every logical point, every examination of benefits to everyone involved are masterful. His arguments have been honed over decades to explain exactly what he means. But to not be allowed to do something merely because he doesn't like it, that gores my cow. It is no different than Microsoft getting a law passed that says that I may not use software that is Libre. No different at all. |
| grouch May 27, 2006 1:13 PM EDT |
Bob_Robertson: >"But to not be allowed to do something merely because he doesn't like it, that gores my cow. It is no different than Microsoft getting a law passed that says that I may not use software that is Libre. No different at all." Ah, but there is a difference. It's not just because he doesn't like it. It's because it is harmful to individuals and communities. It is anti-social. Writing code that is not libre is not anti-social. Releasing that code makes it so because at that point you demand that people cease helping each other just to maintain the secrecy of the code and your control over those who use that code. You use Microsoft getting a law passed against libre software as an example. Actually, Microsoft includes a prohibition against the use of libre software in certain EULAs. This is a demand that you give up freedom. This is completely different than a law demanding that your freedom cannot be taken away. On the one hand, the hypothetical law against releasing code that is not libre would be a law against enticing people to be anti-social. On the other hand, the hypothetical law against libre software would be a law against permitting people to be pro-social. |
| Bob_Robertson May 27, 2006 1:19 PM EDT |
Grouch, both are pre-emptive regulations about what I may or may not do. They are identical in that they make illegal a voluntary action. I don't care if someone is enticing people to murder, much less enticing to "anti-social behavior". Unless there is a victim who can demonstrate harm, there is no crime. |
| dinotrac May 27, 2006 5:10 PM EDT |
grouch: Sorry, you are all wet. Your argument ignores the effect of eliminating IP protection will have on the supply of software. It is anti-social to deprive society of useful programs that people wish to use simply because other programmers can't play around with the code. |
| grouch May 27, 2006 5:20 PM EDT |
dinotrac: Your argument ignores the exercise of postulating two extreme hypothetical laws for the purpose of examining and comparing their differences. |
| dinotrac May 27, 2006 7:15 PM EDT |
grouch: Au contraire. It ignores nothing. My argument merely reminds you that the world is not black and white, but a multitude of shades. |
| tuxchick2 May 27, 2006 7:42 PM EDT |
Speaking of strawmen: "The only place I disagree with RMS is that if he could "write the rules", it would be illegal to release code that was not Libre." Since when? I don't recall RMS ever even hinting that he would do such a thing, if somehow he could. You gored your own cow, I'm afraid. |
| grouch May 27, 2006 7:54 PM EDT |
dinotrac: That was the point, to compare the two extremes to see if there was a difference between a hypothetical law against non-free software and a hypothetical law against free software. You ignored the original hypothesis put forth by Bob_Robertson. It's not about the real world as it is now; it's about an imagined world wherein RMS creates a law banning the release of non-free software versus an imagined world in which MS creates a law banning free software. Each extreme ignores the special circumstances imposed by the real world. If you reintroduce that "multitude of shades" then you eliminate considering either extreme to determine if those extremes are qualitatively different. Neither extreme considers edge cases. They are "black and white". This is what you ignored in considering your hypothetical effect of "IP" on software supply. That's an entirely different problem, not considered by either extreme. Free (libre) software is the focus of both extremes. This is defined by the 4 freedoms: 0. The ability to run the program for any purpose. 1. The ability to study the program and adapt it. 2. The ability to redistribute the program. 3. The ability to improve the program and distribute the improvements. One bans the release (distribution to the public) of software that allows a programmer to impose his or her control to eliminate one or more of those freedoms. The other bans the use of software that allows a user those four freedoms. Sure, extremes tend to be ridiculous, but, since laws are presumably created for the betterment of society, are those two extremes different in their likelihood of making society better? |
| jdixon May 28, 2006 6:40 AM EDT |
Dino: Pardon me for a moment, but that phrase just triggered a pet peeve of mine. > that the world is not black and white, but a multitude of shades. Well, first (speaking primarily of legal, political, and philosophical subjects here), things which are often considered a shade of grey devolve to either black or white very quickly under the right conditions. The trick is determining those conditions which illustrate their true nature. So while the world may have a multitude of shades, the spectrum of true shades is much more limited than it appears. Secondly, the world is actually composed of a multitude of colors, not shades, which only map to a more limited range of shades when view in monochorme. So, the world is both simpler and far more complex than your statement would indicate. :) |
| dinotrac May 28, 2006 7:22 AM EDT |
jdixon: touche. |
| jimf May 28, 2006 7:25 AM EDT |
The law rarely sees things in color. |
| dinotrac May 28, 2006 7:26 AM EDT |
grouch: >One bans the release (distribution to the public) of software that allows a programmer to impose his or her control to eliminate one or more of those freedoms. Perhaps it's merely the characterization to which I object. None of the four freedoms applies to code that does not exist. Proprietary code depends on the availability of IP protection to exist. To me, it is utterly ambiguous as to whether proprietary code affects freedom one whit. The question is whether it prevents the creation of free software that otherwise would exist, and to what extent. |
| grouch May 28, 2006 8:24 AM EDT |
tuxchick2: >"I don't recall RMS ever even hinting that he would do such a thing, if somehow he could." The closest reference I could find to RMS stating he would outlaw non-free software if he could is from an interview on pigdog.org. I couldn't find a date, but using wget --timestamping to grab one of the photos shows a date of Feb 26, 1999. [BEGIN long quote:] MB: But how would you respond to someone who say, "That's a, that's a very socialist viewpoint, that we all have this software, that we share it together..." RS: No, it's not. MB: "We give it to each other, to each according to his needs..." RS: Yes, but it's not socialist or Communist because those have to do with centralized ownership of things. We're not talking about centralized anything. It's about individual freedom. We have a paradoxical situation where one particular area of business, it's not business in general, it's one line of business, uses a particular business practice that's based on subjugating the public, based on dividing and conquering. Well, when there's a business practice that conflicts with an important value like freedom and community, prohibit it. MB: [surprised] "Prohibit" is a strong word. RS: Absolutely. When people made paper by dumping poison in the river, what did, that was, hurting the community. MB: Ah. *That's* prohibited. RS: So we prohibited it. Now, it's not that there's anything wrong with making paper, or we didn't prohibit business, we didn't prohibit making paper, we prohibited dumping poison in the river. Now, I'm concerned with the poisoning of a resource that is not physical, but is even more important than most of the physical resources we care about. And that is the goodwill of the community. The will to help your neighbor. When people were told, "If you share with your neighbor, you're a pirate," that is attacking this resource directly. You shouldn't tolerate that. Now, as it happens, for the most part, people doing this base it on the support of the government. There's explicit government intervention to help them subjugate and divide people. It's very easy to stop it. Society and it's government should stop helping software owners to divide the users. [END long quote]. http://www.pigdog.org/interviews/stallman/interview_with_sta... |
| Bob_Robertson May 30, 2006 1:46 PM EDT |
Thanks, Grouch, that does seem to be the text that I read as well. It was a while ago, and my memory has never been good for exact wordings. JimF, that's it exactly. Either it is legal, or it is not. There is a grey area, the field between that which is required and that which is prohibitted. My personal bias is merely to make that grey area as wide as possible. I therefore eschew both prohibition and requirement. |
| grouch May 30, 2006 4:27 PM EDT |
dinotrac: >"Proprietary code depends on the availability of IP protection to exist." [Deliberately taken out of context.] Linux is proprietary, BTW, as are all free software programs, including GPL, BSD, Mozilla, etc. All free software depends on copyright law to protect it in the manner in which the owners want it protected. The existence of copyright law or patent law or trademark law is irrelevant to my disagreement with Bob_Robertson over whether the two fantasy laws are different. It seems, however, that each of us was basing the comparison on a more extreme law than RMS talked about back in 1999. RMS >"Society and it's government should stop helping software owners to divide the users." That's slightly different than what we were considering, before. The way that governments help software owners divide users is by way of enforcing those various "IP" laws, specifically, copyright and software patents. In order for one user to help another user with closed software copyright law and patent law would have to allow the copying and distribution of that software. That is the effect of "copyleft", so the GPL is slowly achieving that goal. Microsoft is still attempting to get laws and regulations to at least curtail free software. The recent ban by the U.S. government on Lenovo hardware, even though it is manufactured in the same facilities and with the same people as before being sold by IBM, is too close to Microsoft's fight to stop PCs shipping without MS Windows to be a coincidence. |
| dcparris May 30, 2006 5:03 PM EDT |
Dino:
> Your argument ignores the effect of eliminating IP protection will have on the supply of software. It is anti-social to deprive society of useful programs that people wish to use simply because other programmers can't play around with the code. Pardon my coming late to this part of the discussion. I would like to know what your basis is for such a statement. Are you saying that, if non-free software were outlawed, there would be no software? How would the elimination of non-free software eliminate the supply of software? Just because it isn't non-free doesn't mean it won't exist. (1) The modern FOSS movement is demonstrable proof that society would not be deprived of useful programs. (2) The prohibition of non-free licenses does not necessarily equate to the elimination of copyright or patents. Patents would still exist for some things, just not software. Copyright would still be needed, and could even be used to enforce the prohibition of non-free software. (3) Businesses would simply be forced to find new ways of distributing software without prohibiting sharing. A number of businesses are working in that direction already. While the appeal to higher values is noble, many people currently shrug off the higher values as impractical. To borrow from Stallman's example above, I'm sure the paper mills thought it unrealistic to make paper without poisoning the water. (4) If I understand correctly, Stallman doesn't believe in "intellectual property". I believe copyrights and patents can be useful tools, but I don't share the extreme view of the RIAA, that copyrights (or patents) should be permanent. Note: I have never thought of taking things so far as Stallman, so I haven't given this a great deal of thought. |
| Bob_Robertson May 30, 2006 5:09 PM EDT |
Grouch, certainly the present indefinite copyright duration, and the mess of "software" and "business practice" patents, is forcing things to come to a head. Were copyright of truly limited duration, and patents only for physical objects, there would likely be nothing to argue about except principles. I want the whole mess thrown out. Period. Government granting of monopolies, be they territorial, physical or on ideas, causes more problems than it solves. The "argumentum ad absurdum" has been done for us, by the Congress of the United States. What will things look like without artificial monopoly grants? I don't know. Maybe "trademark" will remain something that can be legally protected, like no one opening an McDonald's restaurant and utilizing McDonald's(tm, reg us pat off) Restaurant's good name. I expect that would still be possible. Linux by Linus Torvalds, The Real Linux, Microsoft Windows, etc etc etc. Personally, I'd love to find out. |
| grouch May 30, 2006 5:54 PM EDT |
dcparris: >'(4) If I understand correctly, Stallman doesn't believe in "intellectual property".' It's the term "intellectual property" that he strongly objects to because of the great differences in the various forms. Specialist lawyers use the term without confusion, but the propagandists of, for example, Microsoft and the MAFIAA, use the term to confuse the layman. See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.xhtml I don't have a link handy, but Stallman has stated that he supports trademarks and trademark law as reasonable. IIRC, he made supportive comments along those lines when Red Hat first moved to get cheap-CD distributors to remove the Red Hat name and logo from those CDs. Bob_Robertson: >'The "argumentum ad absurdum" has been done for us, by the Congress of the United States.' Absolutely! That pile of Post-It [tm, whatever] notes stuck all over your monitor, your walls, and cascading onto the floor are copyright protected for 70 years after your death. See http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/training/Hirtle_Public_Doma... |
| dcparris May 30, 2006 6:36 PM EDT |
Grouch: Stallman has been supportive of Red Hat's use of trademark. He stated something along the lines of trademarks becoming more important. I also don't think he opposes Copyright - only the way in which it is being (mis)used. You are also correct about his opposition to the *term* "intellectual property". I can support what the Creative Commons refers to as "Founders' Copyright". I even support much of the Creative Commons' ideas for licensing content (another loaded term, as far as RMS is concerned). Unfortunately, I think Lessig has suggested some form of DRM is a good thing, or something along those lines. I stand to be corrected on that assertion though. Bob: >I want the whole mess thrown out. Period. Government granting of monopolies, be they territorial, physical or on ideas, causes more problems than it solves. Will that throw us back to the days that led up to the Statute of Queen Ann (where publishers fought tooth and nail to prevent re-publishing of books - effectively for pertpetual copyright)? Frankly, I cannot help but wonder if the effort to enforce such rights will be akin to enforcing drug laws - unmanagable. And don't get me started on the notion of criminalizing the act of sharing. But I do question the goal of eliminating copyright and patents altogether. |
| dinotrac May 31, 2006 12:39 AM EDT |
Rev - The real bite is not IP so much as its perversion. The concept of time and scope limited monopolies is not a bad one. The original idea -- lost somewhere along the way -- was to add more things to the public domain. Patents are the alternative to trade secrets. Drugs are both a great and bad example. The best drugs go generic when their patents expire. New drugs cost an arm and a leg, and drug companies do everything they can to get doctors to prescribe new drugs, even when old ones are more effective. So long as it costs a fortune to develop new drugs, something that serves the purpose of patents is needed. |
| Bob_Robertson May 31, 2006 7:06 AM EDT |
DC, no, the "statute of queen ann" if I read that correctly, I've not heard of it before, is what we have _now_. To paraphrase, "The Mouse Will Never Go Public Domain". Copyright and patent are just government grants of monopoly. The wording, "for a limited time", was a rationalization that I believe didn't work out in the long run. Once government had such a power, those who wish to profit by wielding that power go shopping and the result is the absurdities we have now. Certainly the problem of books never being published again would not happen. Even now, I am reading a perfectly modern copy of Homer's _The Iliad_. And I know without doubt that he didn't give permission for the reprint. Fan-subtitled anime is a good example. When a good title is not available in a particular language, fans will translate and subtitle. When legal copies are available, those that would have bought them do so in order to support future production. No, of course there are leaches who take and take, but they would not have paid in the first place either. I've got a $400 laser-disk copy of _Kimagure Orange Road_ for which I do not even own a player. DVDs happened while I wasn't looking. :^) When Tolkien asked those distributing an un-authorized version of his _Lord of the Rings_ (since it hadn't been available in America yet) to stop because the authorized version was on its way, they did. I believe that such efforts of reputation and honesty will suffice for "authors and inventors to profit by their labors". Just not in perpetuity, assured by government monopoly. |
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!