well written
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| purplewizard Nov 01, 2006 6:12 AM EDT |
I often find things you write to miss the mark but not this time. I from what I have read (lots on him and FSF) don't think I would like Stallman in person. Admire him and acknowledge this amazing adherence to his "preachings" yes, hugely. I'm glad you mention the printer origin as it does demonstrate the origin of purpose of Free Software so crisply. On the GPL I have to think people who say "it's politicizing it" really have no idea that it always has been political and with deliberate social intent. And to turn the cutting edge of the sword of our capitalist law driven society on them if they didn't realize the scope of the license they started to use then tough luck for not reading the small print. Returning to RMS I find it a personally very odd (even amusing) that the more I read and immerse in Free Software the more I find I don't like him but like the result of his actions and believe it to be so right (at least compared to the alternatives that are presently visible). |
| dinotrac Nov 01, 2006 6:26 AM EDT |
> (at least compared to the alternatives that are presently visible). Stallman is not merely brilliant, he is energetic. The combination has led to many good things. The GPL has been a good and powerful tool. He has promoted lots of thought and lots of action. But... I don't know. Apache, postgresql, FreeBSD, x.org, python, etc don't really cause me a whole lot of angst. Stallman didn't invent free software and he doesn't define the free software universe. If you really want to dive into free software history, you've got to go back a lot further than the 1980s. |
| jimf Nov 01, 2006 7:34 AM EDT |
> Stallman is not merly brilliant, he is energetic. The combination has led to many good things. The GPL has been a good and powerful tool. I agree. > He has promoted lots of thought and lots of action. Action, yes, and most of it good, but, it's my observation that his goal is actually to suppress all real thought except where directed by his view of reality. > Stallman didn't invent free software and he doesn't define the free software universe. If you really want to dive into free software history, you've got to go back a lot further than the 1980s. Excellent point. My gripe with Stallman is that he's made it his life's mission to hijack a formerly logical ethical and legal evolution toward open software, and turn it into a cult mentality driven mob. Many here apparently think that 'Poor Richard' is merely being targeted by his disabilities, or his appearance or his 'weirdness' (as Don put's it) I really think he's quite aware and capable. He obviously can be very charismatic when he wants to be. The poppa bear image is only a ploy (one of a bunch) that he uses to keep himself and his view of what open software should be in the limelight. What disturbs me is that even some of the more rational members of this forum are unwilling or unable to even consider the possibility of Stallman's culpability in this and immediately yell 'character assignation!'. Now if we were talking about Bill Gates, or even the President of Sun, would you have trouble looking at the record??? |
| jdixon Nov 01, 2006 8:05 AM EDT |
> My gripe with Stallman is that he's made it his life's mission to hijack a formerly logical ethical and legal evolution toward open software, and turn it into a cult mentality driven mob. I'm not sure that's true. Given that ESR and Linus are so much more oriented towards pragmatism, Stallman may simply believe that he's the only highly visible proponent left of free software, and be doing his best to fill the void he thinks they've left. I think this theory fits his actions as well as yours does, though obviously it's difficult to prove either. However, outside of the GPL3 debase, I've seen no other evidence to indicate that Stallman is seeking publicity or power for his own sake. If he were actually trying to hijack the movement, I'd think it would be more obvious. |
| jimf Nov 01, 2006 8:38 AM EDT |
> I'd think it would be more obvious. Obviously I think Stallman's more capable than you do :D |
| incinerator Nov 01, 2006 8:48 AM EDT |
- "Stallman didn't invent free software and he doesn't define the free software universe." - "Excellent point. My gripe with Stallman is that he's made it his life's mission to hijack a formerly logical ethical and legal evolution toward open software, and turn it into a cult mentality driven mob." Ah, there's my favourite troll again (not you, dino). RMS has never claimed he invented Free Software. Free Software was the way software was distributed before the trend to commercialisation took over and companies started making software non-free. Unix itself used to be Free Software effectively, otherwise BSD would never have existed. That's exactly what RMS says, as well. But unless you actually have listened to one of his speeches, and if only to recorded ones, you would not know that. Stupid journalists who don't care about proper research might mistakenly name him the inventor of Free Software, but that's rubbish of course. However, history also tells that this talk about an "evolution" towards free software is pure nonsense. It's the other way round actually. To summarise: In the early days of computing, software used to be Free. Then people started to make software non-free for commercial reasons. If any evolution has been taking place it was one to stricter control and less freedom for consumers and users. It doesn't apply to software only, but to other forms of copyrighted works, as well. Over the last 100 years copyright has been getting more restrictive. Protection times have been made longer, fair use has been restricted, things like the software patents, DMCA, DRM, tivoisation and treacherous computing haven been created and unleashed upon the world. Nah, that doesn't look like an natural evolution to Free Software to me, on the contrary. If it hadn't been for the Free Software movement and all the projects related to it, Linux, Apache, BSD, X etc. we'd all be slaves of MS now. It's true that other people besides RMS had an high impact on this, nevertheless he deserves a big share of the credit creating the Free Software Movement. Another misconception some readers here seem to have is the impact of FSF, GNU and GPL onto politics. Some seem to complain about the FSF politicising (free) software. Well, I think we should appreciate these efforts. It should be obvious to everyone that software generally is politically important, very important. Every kind of technology that has a high impact on society has a political impact, as well. Why should software, which has been the most important technology in the world for the last couple of decades, be the exception. Software is an important political issue, and so is the issue of Freedom as a user and/or developer of software. No, RMS did not politicise software nor did he politicise software licensing. He simply opened our eyes to the fact that software had become politically important. That's got nothing to do with a following dodgy cult or fanboyism. We're just re-claiming our freedom, just like the people from Leipzig did when they started the Monday Demonstrations in the GDR back in 1989. |
| jimf Nov 01, 2006 9:04 AM EDT |
> - "Stallman didn't invent free software and he doesn't define the free software universe." Absolutely, but that seems to be the way you view it ;-) > favourite troll Well, I pretty much discount you too. |
| tuxchick Nov 01, 2006 9:19 AM EDT |
Yes, jimf, character assassination. Because so far you haven't come up with anything other than comments along the lines of 'RMS is weird and bad.' Nothing specific, no refuting of his positions on anything, no demonstrating factually why he is weird and bad, and now apparently a mob cult leader. You're only attacking his character and personality. You're entitled to have all the irrational dislikes you want- and that's all they are in this case, because you haven't come up with anything more than ranty froth in the same spirit as that Dan Lyons hatchet piece. It's no good pretending otherwise. It seems you have a rather large blind spot here, so let me see if I can clarify things a bit. 1. ' cult mentality driven mob' Can you cite some examples supporting this? Is he inciting people to attack anyone who doesn't agree with his views? Can you show any examples of him badmouthing or putting anyone else down? Has he attempted to incite anyone against people who do not agree with him? 2. 'hijack a formerly logical ethical and legal evolution toward open software' How? Please cite some specific actions. As far as I can tell, his views are exactly the same as they have always been. What has changed? You may recall that GPL2 was pretty much just RMS and his lawyers. There were no invitations for community input and review. For GPL3 community input and review has been invited, and it has undergone substantial revisions. Is that the hijacking part? Or the cult mob part? RMS is definitely being targeted. I'll bet money that if Linus started saying "It's time to take a hard line on free software- take your binary blobs and stick them where the sun don't shine" you'd start seeing the exact same stuff- Linus is old and weird. Linus has lost his way. He used to be cool, but now he's just a weird old man with wrong ideas who'll do anything to remain in the spotlight. It's the same old tactic of discrediting the messenger. Nothing new, and unfortunately it works. |
| dinotrac Nov 01, 2006 9:47 AM EDT |
>You may recall that GPL2 was pretty much just RMS and his lawyers. There were no invitations for community input and review So...how grouchy will you get if I accuse you of intellectual dishonesty? A lot of things have happened since GPLV2, most notably the Linux explosion. It didn't matter that much whether or not RMS solicited advice on V2. The affected universe was much smaller. He came out with a great instrument. That was then and this is now. Linux has happened. Free software is no longer the exclusive province of a small coterie of ubergeeks. That's a good thing, but it definitely changes things. To pretend it doesn't is to be dishonest. |
| tuxchick Nov 01, 2006 10:17 AM EDT |
dino, what's dishonest about it? You didn't answer any of the questions I raised- where is the hijacking or cult mobbing? Can you name any other software licenses that are expected to undergo community review and achieve consensus? You yourself said somewheres that no one is forcing anyone to use any particular license. GPL2 is still alive and well, as are the entire herd of FOSS licenses. Software authors decide what licenses to use, not RMS. If you're going to make accusations of intellectual dishonesty, you're going to need something with a bit of substance to back them up. More and more this smells like brown monkey syndrome. |
| jimf Nov 01, 2006 10:25 AM EDT |
> discrediting the messenger It's pretty hard not to discredit the messenger when he is also the 'sole' creator and the promoter, and the interpreter. If you can't see that, I really think you're the one with the blind spot. > 'RMS is weird and bad.' I never said that. You guys seem to be the ones thinking along those lines. |
| jimf Nov 01, 2006 11:01 AM EDT |
Tuxchick, I said: RMS's four 'rights' are essentially one mans view of what RMS perceives as 'truth', but, he expects everyone else to recognize and agree with that view unequivocal. Is that not self evident? And, Is that acceptable to you? Personally, I find that attitude insufferable, and totally counter to any 'freedom'. It's Intellectual dishonesty of the first order. I say: 'he's made it his life's mission to hijack a formerly logical ethical and legal evolution toward open software, and turn it into a cult mentality driven mob.' I think you can clearly see the result of that in this forum. If you can't, look inward. You said: 'his views are exactly the same as they have always been' No argument there... He's been conning us from the get go. |
| dcparris Nov 01, 2006 11:06 AM EDT |
I guess TC will have to stand corrected. You said in another thread that he was a nut. That might be different from weird, which Lyons attempted to throw in on top of 'nut'/'looney'/whatever. He didn't say so directly, but he was sure trying to paint the picture of RMS as an out-of-touch looney. |
| dinotrac Nov 01, 2006 11:15 AM EDT |
TC - >You yourself said somewheres that no one is forcing anyone to use any particular license. GPL2 is still alive and well, as are the entire herd of FOSS licenses. Software authors decide what licenses to use, not RMS. If you're going to make accusations of intellectual dishonesty, you're going to need something with a bit of substance to back them up. More and more this smells like brown monkey syndrome. All of which has what to do with what? You haven't seen me jumping all over RMS for weirdness,etc. I responded to a single point you made...that RMS didn't seek input on GPLV2. My response is "So what?" The GPL didn't matter nearly as much back then as it matters now. It is dishonest to pretend that the perfectly acceptable approach of 1991 is equally acceptable today. You are also correct that people are free not to use the GPLV3. I certainly would feel a lot better about it if RMS treated it more like another GPLV2 compatible license as opposed to "the" license. Maybe something akin to the LGPL -- If you don't want your software in a Tivo, choose GPLV3. Trouble is, I don't think there's any way to make the 2 compatible. |
| jimf Nov 01, 2006 11:17 AM EDT |
Don, My intent was to say that Stallman 'acts' like a nut. That's what I really believe is going on. Sorry, my bad. |
| dinotrac Nov 01, 2006 11:21 AM EDT |
jimf - Do you use John Kerry's speech writer? |
| jimf Nov 01, 2006 11:26 AM EDT |
lol yeah, he was cheap :D |
| jdixon Nov 01, 2006 12:12 PM EDT |
Jimf: > I think you can clearly see the result of that in this forum. If you can't, look inward. I think it's probably important at this point to distinguish between a person HAVING a cult following and a person SEEKING a cult following. I believe your position that RMS is the latter. My view would be that the former is more accurate. Your previous response probably also applies here, so I don't think you need to repeat it. :) |
| jdixon Nov 01, 2006 12:15 PM EDT |
> Do you use John Kerry's speech writer? Unfortunately for Kerry, he was almost certainly adlibbing at the time. |
| dinotrac Nov 01, 2006 12:41 PM EDT |
>Unfortunately for Kerry, he was almost certainly adlibbing at the time. You're probably right. I voted for Bush in 2004, but I don't believe the man can outthink many politicians on the national scene. The Democrats managed to put up one of the few. And they think Karl Rove is their biggest enemy. |
| jdixon Nov 01, 2006 1:14 PM EDT |
> I voted for Bush in 2004 I didn't (third party), but I agree that the Democrats are their own worst enemies. |
| jimf Nov 01, 2006 1:21 PM EDT |
> Your previous response probably also applies here Nope, I said what I wanted to there. True either way, it's ongoing. |
| jdixon Nov 01, 2006 1:34 PM EDT |
Jimf: > Nope, I said what I wanted to there. True either way, it's ongoing. Sorry. I don't think I was clear. I meant your response to my earlier post, namely: > Obviously I think Stallman's more capable than you do :D Which to me seems applicable to my more recent post also. If that's the one you meant too, then I'm not sure I understand this response. |
| jimf Nov 01, 2006 2:03 PM EDT |
> I think it's probably important at this point to distinguish between a person HAVING a cult following and a person SEEKING a cult following. I believe your position that RMS is the latter. My view would be that the former is more accurate. Ok jdixion, I think this is the comment :). In which case, I'm not differentiating between having and seeking. i.e. He has a bunch, and continues to seek more... |
| jdixon Nov 01, 2006 2:17 PM EDT |
> In which case, I'm not differentiating between having and seeking. i.e. He has a bunch, and continues to seek more... Well, as I noted in the last W3F fiasco, I tend to give people the benefit of a doubt. Possibly too much so in some cases. You may be correct and this may be one of them. |
| jimf Nov 01, 2006 2:26 PM EDT |
> The Democrats managed to put up one of the few I don't think I've seen any party put up a candidate worthy of the Presidency in the last 20-30 years. They must kill anyone like that off before they get within shouting distance ;-) |
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!