Those darned Anglicans...
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| dinotrac Mar 03, 2007 7:05 PM EDT |
This whole conversation reminds me of arguments between fellow Christians on whether good works are essential for getting to Heaven, or whether entrance to Heaven is secured by the mere fact of accepting Christ as Lord and Savior, a side effect of which is the performance of good works as the natural consequence of following God's commands and trying to emulate Jesus. In other words: people who believe 95% of the same thing forget the 95% and get bent out of shape over the 5% difference. Here's a news flash: ESR is not the polar opposite of RMS. Bill Gates and Larry Ellison are the polar opposites of RMS. ESR believes in free software, even if he calls it Open Source. He may be Luther to RMS's Paul, but he is not the devil. Many in the Free Software community seem utterly incapable of telling the difference between enemies and friends with whom you disagree strongly. Ironic that so many people can chant "Free, as in speech" would never dare to embrace the concept. |
| Libervis Mar 03, 2007 8:57 PM EDT |
Well note that what I was saying applies only to a probably small portion of the Free Software community, not everyone. It probably sounded like I was portraying ESR as the enemy which we have to listen to with an open mind. Note though that I didn't use the word "enemy", but merely an opponent in a debate, and there sure is a constantly ongoing debate between those with an Open Source viewpoint and those with a Free Software view. That is actually a good thing, something that makes us unique as a hybrid community, but it is a good thing only as long as the debate is a real debate, only as long the two sides are actually listening to each other rather than just closing their ears. What I wrote basically as a reminder to the Free Software supporters who dislike ESR goes just as much to Open Source supporters who can't stand RMS. Listen, keep an open mind. That's the only way you can continue a fair debate. |
| swbrown Mar 04, 2007 1:06 AM EDT |
> ESR believes in free software, even if he calls it Open Source. The whole reason he created "Open Source" was because he thought "Free Software" was anti-business and should be watered down. As Wikipedia tells it, in a somewhat slanted way, "They used the opportunity before the release of Navigator's source code to free themselves of the ideological and confrontational connotations of the term free software". Seeing as that 'ideology' was the whole point of Stallman's "Free Software" moniker, intentionally stripping it makes ESR definitely /not/ a believer in Free Software. It'd take some serious revisionism to make it so. |
| dinotrac Mar 04, 2007 4:33 AM EDT |
>It'd take some serious revisionism to make it so. No more than the stilted revisionism that makes RMS the center of the free software universe. Free software was around many years before RMS "invented" it. To make belief in free software contingent on accepting RMS's ideology (which more or less lets out Linus Torvalds, another major friend of free software) is to ignore history. Perhaps the problem is one that RMS himself has struggled with, the one that lies behind the phrase "free speech, not free beer". If, when you say "free software", you mean "RMS acolyte", then I agree with you 110%. ESR does not worship at the church of Stallman. He is part of the older and broader tradition of free software. That tradition has room for philosopher kings as well as "git 'er done" types. |
| Libervis Mar 04, 2007 7:41 AM EDT |
Well dinotrac of course Free Software existed well before RMS. RMS didn't invent anything, he merely wants to restore the Free Software setting in which he grew as a programmer and hacker. He is the one, of many at the time, who dared to oppose the trend of closing code behind non-disclosure agreements etc. Where would that Free Software culture be if someone didn't have the guts to go against the flow? [plug] You should really read this: http://www.libervis.com/article/understanding_the_free_softw... [/plug] Cheers |
| Alcibiades Mar 04, 2007 11:25 AM EDT |
Well, we should take note from the Anglicans. They were born out of religious wars, and for several hundred years after 1660, the Anglican church protected the English against religious enthusiasm. Maybe we need something similar. Vague as to dogma, open as to membership, strongly opposed to excessive enthusiasm of any sort. The famous story is told of the Anglican church. A young man is contemplating ordination and goes to his spiritual advisor. I have trouble, he says, with one or two of the thirty-nine articles. Oh dear, says his advisor. That is very serious indeed. Only one or two? Oh dear. We do have a problem. |
| dinotrac Mar 04, 2007 11:44 AM EDT |
Alcibiades- I like it! I think you have caught my point precisely. Thanks for the anecdote. |
| Bob_Robertson Mar 04, 2007 12:18 PM EDT |
It's interesting to note, in Richard Dawkins' book _The God Delusion_, he goes into how he sees the "rationality" and "humanity" of the Anglicans having done a great deal toward taking the mysticism, the fanaticism, out of religion. I mean, if we're talking about absolute hell for someone who is "wrong", then getting fanatical and all medieval on their ass is actually doing them a favor. Right? I love that "Only one or two? Oh dear, we do have a problem." It fits Dawkins' description perfectly. |
| Aladdin_Sane Mar 04, 2007 4:08 PM EDT |
Babe Rainbow I could not be a FOSSer without ESR. In 1998 when I went to research the subject, I found much ESR influenced material, including of course,"The Cathedral and the Bazaar." Look, I work in a Lab devoted to Linux. Recently I asked my Team Lead if he had read "CatB." He had no idea what I was talking about. How can anyone have opinion or judgment without basis on which to opine or judge? Beats the out of me. |
| swbrown Mar 04, 2007 5:12 PM EDT |
> No more than the stilted revisionism that makes RMS the center of the free software universe. Free software was around many years before RMS "invented" it. He coined the damn term. The point of arguing about ESR's relation to "Free Software" is based on the /term/, not that 'software we now would consider licensed under a "Free Software" license' existed long before either of them. That's irrelevant. RMS = "Free Software" /term/, means an ideology ESR = I want to strip out the ideology, here's my /term/, "Open Source" |
| Aladdin_Sane Mar 04, 2007 5:49 PM EDT |
>ideology I do mean to impugn RMS, nor his contribution. What I do mean is that software is not a moral thing, does not admit of rightness or wrongness. As the grass is green, so software is. To admit of either moral grace or failing, the necessary component of choice is required. Software has no choice; it is. To admit of morality, right or wrong, an entity must have a choice. Since software is, and is without its choice or sanction, it fails to admit of choice or cognition. Without this, neither evil nor goodness can be predicated of it. Software is software, as the grass is green. Not fear, not grace. No, the software is the software, as the grass is green. |
| dinotrac Mar 04, 2007 6:21 PM EDT |
>He coined the damn term. About the time he invented motherhood, apple-pie and the practical electric car, I suppose. At least we know that, when you say free software, you mean "Free Software" according the Gospel of Richard. It should save many an effort at reasoned discussion. |
| Libervis Mar 04, 2007 9:03 PM EDT |
Aladdin_Sane, of course, software, just as grass, "just is" and in itself knows no questions of ethics or morality. However, throwing garbage at your neighbours grass can be an unethical act, just as denying you to control what runs on your computer. Dinotrac, chill out. The gospel? I've had enough of these comparations with religion. It's an old worn out strategy of decredibilizing something, which simply doesn't work as far as I'm concerned, and says more about you than about those who call Free Software as Free Software. Cheers |
| swbrown Mar 04, 2007 9:54 PM EDT |
> About the time he invented motherhood, apple-pie and the practical electric car, I suppose. So you're denying that the term, in capitals, "Free Software", was coined by RMS in the 80s as part of the Free Software movement/Foundation? If so, give evidence for that. The above is not evidence, it's.. I don't even know what the point of that quote was. It certainly wasn't a valid defense against a claim of revisionist views on the relation of ESR to the term "Free Software". |
| galeru Mar 04, 2007 10:28 PM EDT |
In a simple attempt at unambiguity, instead of "Free Software", couldn't we use "Freedom Software"? Then we could use our freedom software, and eat our freedom fries as well. |
| dinotrac Mar 05, 2007 4:10 AM EDT |
>"Free Software" In a trademark sense of the word, with capitals, I believe you to be correct. And thank you for supporting my distinction between free software and "Free Software". |
| dinotrac Mar 05, 2007 4:26 AM EDT |
>It's an old worn out strategy of decredibilizing something, which simply doesn't work as far as I'm concerned, It's an equally old worn-out strategy to chase away criticism by categorizing it as something else. For example, when Saddam Hussein gassed thousands of Kurds to death, it would not surprise me if some politically-correct soul waved away comparisons to Hitler's WWII atrocities as an incendiary comparison that kills reasoned debate. Sometimes things are what they are, politically correct or not. Forgetting for a moment the whole St. IgGNUtious thing, I think -- not so much for RMS himself as many a star-struck acolyte -- that free software -- whoops!! "Free Software" -- makes more sense in a religious context than it does in a legal, political, or technical one. These people hate ESR more than they despise Bill Gates! The only context in which that makes even a modicum of sense is religious, where truly bad men can be trumped by demons, regardless of the magnitude of their transgressions. Some will drip venom over BSD software, for the simple sin of being free without being GPL. We don't see too many "four freedoms" mantra-chanters on lxer these days. If the topic comes up, it is more likely to be germain to a discussion rather than mere religious incantations. But those people are out there somewhere! You are free to think of me whatever you like. You are equally free to express it -- in a non-defamatory way, of course. I am equally free to believe that many "Free Software" folks believe (possibly think) in a way akin to religious fundamentalists. |
| swbrown Mar 05, 2007 5:01 AM EDT |
> These people hate ESR more than they despise Bill Gates! Assuming your 'star-struck acolytes' refer to FSF members, give specific examples that FSF members 'hate ESR more than they despise Bill Gates', or that's just anti-FSF defamation. Or if 'these people' refers to a different group of 'star-struck [RMS] acolytes', specific examples for them, then. > You are free to think of me whatever you like. You are equally free to express it -- in a non-defamatory way, of course. Irony, or hypocrisy? |
| DarrenR114 Mar 05, 2007 5:21 AM EDT |
Time for my 2 pence: RMS has done more to harm free software as an ideal than to help it. Back in the days before the GPL, free software was exchanged freely among software programmers without encumberances. The only "copyright" was the retention of the original author's name in comments at the beginning of software source code files. It wasn't done because we *had* to. It was done because it was the right thing to do and we wanted to. It was an unspoken principle of share and share alike. It was an informal system based on acts of good kharma. Then along comes RMS who decides to muck up the whole thing by telling the rest of the world *how* to do what we'd been doing all along. Then he had the unmitigated gall to tell the rest of us that we weren't doing it right because it wasn't his way. The rise of "Open Source" as a rival to "Free Software" is exactly because the majority of us programmers who'd been working in the trenches felt that RMS was, and remains, *wrong* in his approach. We are the French Underground resisting the fascism of the Gates et al, while at the same time resisting the intrusive dictates of the FSF. |
| bigg Mar 05, 2007 6:17 AM EDT |
> RMS has done more to harm free software as an ideal than to help it. On the subject of ESR, harm to free software is definitely relevant to the discussion. My first experience with Linux, in 1999 or 2000, was not positive to say the least. I would ask in forums and the answer would inevitably be RTFM. Yes, there would be one sentence in a terse, poorly worded document that made a vague reference to my problem. I would often get pointed to the writings of a rather popular individual named Eric Raymond. To say I was turned off would be an understatement. I'm sure I wasn't alone. There was a lot of smiling in Redmond a short while ago. According to one of the gods of the open source world, a leading distribution will break for no apparent reason with no way to fix the problem. Moreover, Linux distributions are not suitable for the vast majority of computer users unless they come with Microsoft software preinstalled. Talk about an endorsement. Microsoft could not possibly have bought more credible marketing material for $100 million. I agree, we need to focus on the 95% we have in common. The problem with ESR is that he likes to focus on the other 5%. And when he does it, he pulls no punches, and it is done in the leading news outlets, not on a mailing list for developers. |
| dinotrac Mar 05, 2007 7:15 AM EDT |
>Irony, or hypocrisy? Neither one. It is wrong to defame anybody. Should I assume that you do not know what defamation is? |
| dinotrac Mar 05, 2007 7:19 AM EDT |
>I agree, we need to focus on the 95% we have in common. The problem with ESR is that he likes to focus on the other 5%. And when he does it, he pulls no punches, True -- and it is completely fair to criticize him roundly for doing so. I disagree vehemently on many things with members of my family. In the end, however, we are still family and we still stick together on the things that matter most. I consider ESR a friend to free software and think the best way to shut him up is to prove him wrong. That won't happen with debates. That'll happen with action. |
| Libervis Mar 05, 2007 7:24 AM EDT |
Dinotrac, I am an associate member of the FSF, and yet I published or wrote articles which are critical of the FSF and continue to examine alternative strategies to those promoted by the FSF (hence all of these articles about ESR and Landley's "World Domination 201" and in fact the very article this comments thread is attached to). Would you call me a religious fundamentalist? How would you classify me, exactly? If I am not bowing to every word RMS says without questioning (and obviously I am not), then you can't call me a religious fundamentalist. I believe I am far from being the only one with this sort of view and hence you are grossly wrong or at the very least exaggerating when generalizing Free Software supporters under that flag. And of course I detest that flag as almost insulting. In my personal opinion religious fundamentalist often end up doing more bad than good for the world. In fact I detest religion of any sort. Don't stamp those stupid labels of yours on someone you don't even know!! DarrenR114, you really know history don't you? No you don't! The ones who started to change things in the software world for the worse were the proprietary software companies who in order to make more money started licensing software in the most restrictive ways possible. RMS did not do what he did in order to impose his own rules on how software should be shared. He did it in order to *preserve* legal space AND the mindset for sharing code between us. In other words, RMS did not impose anything, he works against impositions. But, as has been said, believe what you wish. I'm seeing many souls here who are already quite convinced in their version of the truth and aren't really capable of listening and examining different ideas. The lowest form of beating the opponent in a debate is start calling him names and labels (like "religious fundamentalist"). Thank you for showing me just how open minded you are. |
| tuxchick Mar 05, 2007 7:28 AM EDT |
wow darren, how perceptions differ. You have it backwards. RMS says "this is what I stand for and believe in, and what I think is best." He does not say "this is what you should do." He does not spam all the news outlets with his latest silly rants. You license your code however you see fit, period. ESR does try to dictate what other people do, like with this silly rant against Fedora. He tells them that they need to change their fundamental policy of 100% free/open source software because he thinks it's better to crud it up with proprietary goo, and since they don't, he's not going to play with them anymore. I won't go into how he also ranted about how they need to overhaul Yum and RPM because he hosed his system, without current backups, by manually force-removing some key libraries. "If a proprietary package that fails to comply with those definitions is identified in the auditing process, Fedora works with the package maintainers and upstream projects to see if they can change the licenses. "In many cases," says Sundaram, "we have successfully done that." http://distrocenter.linux.com/article.pl?sid=07/03/01/164624... Quite a bit more productive than complaining, wouldn't you agree? I keep hearing "RMS dictates that I have to do stuff" and to me it's just plain goofy. Perhaps you can come up with some quotes to reinforce this, because I don't see it. |
| dinotrac Mar 05, 2007 7:34 AM EDT |
Livervis - >How would you classify me, exactly? Go back and read what I said. It is reasonable to be a member of the FSF. It is reasonable to agree with RMS on most things -- though I'm suspicious of any two people who claim to agree on everything. If you'll note, I even made reference in the "4 freedoms" comment that is possible to discuss "Free Software" right along with free software. I haven't called you any names and I haven't called RMS any names. swbrown? Well, sometimes you've got to call a spade a spade. |
| DarrenR114 Mar 05, 2007 7:44 AM EDT |
Oh yes - RMS doesn't impose anything on anyone. I call BOVINE EXCREMENT. The man absolutely refuses to discuss free software unless it is on his terms with his definitions. THAT's CRAP. It's also the mark of a true zealot. Since when is he the final arbitor of the English language? And yes I do know history. I remember exchanging code with other programmers before RMS was known outside of MIT. I remember hungrily devouring program code from publications like Dr. Dobb's Journal before there was an FSF. And this was in the face of the rise of companies like MicroPro International, Software Arts, and Ashton-Tate. I agree that Bill Gates and other IT robber barons did their share to shape the landscape against free software (btw - free software can still be proprietary) but we don't need idealogues like RMS doing what they do either. The movement was there before him and would have survived and thrived without him and his penchant for the sarcastic pedantic soliloquy. |
| dinotrac Mar 05, 2007 7:49 AM EDT |
Darren - RMS does try to leverage whatever power he has to reach his goals. If the GPLV3 experience has taught us anything, it is that RMS has done his job very well, and that his ability to impose himself is limited by the very freedom he promotes. Doesn't mean he won't try, but that's no knock. All good movers and shakers try vigorously to advance their cause. |
| Libervis Mar 05, 2007 7:57 AM EDT |
Dinotrac, I did reread what you said again and you also said the following:Quoting:Forgetting for a moment the whole St. IgGNUtious thing, I think -- not so much for RMS himself as many a star-struck acolyte -- that free software -- whoops!! "Free Software" -- makes more sense in a religious context than it does in a legal, political, or technical one. So alright, the "many" of the Free Software supporters basically make the whole "Free Software" movement make more sense in a religious context? So the many islamist extremists who kill themselves and others in the name of God define what Islam is? Isn't that a generalization based only on a portion of the group being generalized? It certainly feels like that. I am extremely suspicious about ANY sentence containing "RMS", "Free Software" and "religious" in it. I said it was worn out, meaning that it's been done so many times in effective FUD campaigning. DarrenR114, man, I don't know where to begin with you. I think TuxChick responded well. You really did got it all the opposite. If I could only have a time traveling machine to go back in time and maybe somehow prevent RMS from doing what he did (I guess you'd happily help me with that) so we can see exactly where this Free Software movement you're talking about would be without him. But well... I'm sure you'd now proclaim "it'd be so much better without him". I wouldn't hold my breath for it even existing then, though. |
| DarrenR114 Mar 05, 2007 8:17 AM EDT |
I guess all those User groups around the country in the '70's were just my imagination. |
| DarrenR114 Mar 05, 2007 8:18 AM EDT |
TC - I guess what I feel is that both ESR *and* RMS have both stepped over the line "for the cause". It's fine to be critical of me - God knows I'm not perfect by any stretch of the imagination. As for quotes, here's one from 2005 that actually is very descriptive of how I feel, even though I didn't write it: http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/31994/index.html |
| swbrown Mar 05, 2007 8:40 AM EDT |
> Neither one. It is wrong to defame anybody. So I'm still waiting for those specific examples I asked for. Should I assume by your silence you have none? > Should I assume that you do not know what defamation is? "In law, defamation is the communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may harm the reputation of an individual, business, product, group, government or nation." So I'm still waiting for those specific examples you can point to to justify your 'hate ESR more than they despise Bill Gates' sweeping generalization. Where are they? |
| dinotrac Mar 05, 2007 8:44 AM EDT |
>Isn't that a generalization based only on a portion of the group being generalized? It certainly feels like that. Then my language was not clear enough. It is a portion of the group being generalized based on that portion of the group. As I said before, it doesn't even include RMS himself, which leaves lots of room for very strong belief and vigorous debate without being a fanatic. >as many a star-struck acolyte Do you honestly believe all, or even most, FSF members are star-struck acolytes? Are you? Probably not. And, btw, where did I so much as mention FSF membership? One can be and FSF member without being an acolyte. One can be an acolyte without being an FSF member. It depends, I would think, on whether things stop and percolate in that space between the ears. |
| dinotrac Mar 05, 2007 8:46 AM EDT |
>So I'm still waiting for those specific examples you can point to to justify your 'hate ESR more than they despise Bill Gates' sweeping generalization. Where are they? I'm sorry. I presumed that you had been around "Free Software" for more than a few days. I hope that I am not wrong in presuming that you can do your own homework. |
| Bob_Robertson Mar 05, 2007 8:57 AM EDT |
"I keep hearing "RMS dictates that I have to do stuff" and to me it's just plain goofy." RMS makes absolute statements about right and wrong. For instance, if I release code in a proprietary fashion, to RMS I have committed a crime against humanity. I am _wrong_ to release proprietary code. I agree with him, and ESR, that releasing proprietary code is less efficient, less effective, and in the long run might help me a little but it helps no one else at all. But "wrong"? I disagree with him that the GPL.3 is a good thing, or even needed. If I had _my_ way with the world, he could release the GPL.3 because he cannot force me to use it. But if he had his way with the world, I would not be _allowed_ to release my code in a proprietary fashion. I will not "free" the software by enslaving the programmers. That is the fanaticism of which people speak when talking about RMS. |
| Libervis Mar 05, 2007 9:00 AM EDT |
Dinotrac; > And, btw, where did I so much as mention FSF membership? One can be and FSF member without being an acolyte. One can be an acolyte without being an FSF member. It depends, I would think, on whether things stop and percolate in that space between the ears. You didn't mention FSF membership. I mentioned myself being a member simply to point out that I am one of the avid Free Software supporters who thinks RMS is right most of the time (if not all), and am yet not closed minded to alternative ideas. Btw, portion of the group being generalized based on portion of the portion of the group is a kinda weird statement to be honest, but I get what you mean. Thanks for correcting yourself. Oh and no I don't believe that all FSF members are star-struck acolytes. And I certainly hope it's not the majority either. Also, even for a specific group of FS supporters I would very much doubt there is anyone who hates ESR more than Bill Gates. But I would hope that noone actually *hates* anyone here. Hate is blinding. My article here is doing nothing but point out the dangers of this blindness and somehow you dinotrac have managed to shift the discussion to exactly that blindness applied to some Free Software supporters. Why do we even have to focus on that. I've said it in the article; it is not something that applies to *all* Free Software, FSF, GNU supporters, only some. And now we're focusing on those *some* a bit too unproportionaly more than on the Free Software community in general, which has a lot of open minded folk. Just take dcparris here on LXer.com. He seems to be a Free Software supporter who mostly defends RMS, and yet I don't think he strikes anyone as a hater of ESR, Bill Gates or in any way a closed minded guy. I think dcparris is the right kind of example I want to put as a face of the whole Free Software community. So why focus on this small part of supposed "extremists"?? |
| Abe Mar 05, 2007 9:00 AM EDT |
Quoting:Time for my 2 pence: I didn't know that BG or SB had identical twin brothers. Or is it that MS gotten so innovative in cloning? Man we are in serious trouble. |
| Libervis Mar 05, 2007 9:10 AM EDT |
Bob_Robertson; > I will not "free" the software by enslaving the programmers. That is the fanaticism of which people speak when talking about RMS. Software itself cannot be freed because, just as grass someone mentioned here, it "just is". :) So no, I wont be "freeing the software" itself. The word "free" when saying "Free Software" applies to freedom of the one making use of the said software. And this is freedom for both the programmer and the user equally, only from a different perspective. With Free Software, programmer is free to build on the work of others instead of having to reinvent the wheel. He is also free to completely control what is going on at his computers. Programmers benefit from Free Software just as much if not more than end users. The whole ideal of Free Software is here because of programmers in the first place and users because every programmer is essentially a user at the same time. If you think of this as enslaving the programmer I think you're extremely misled. You disagree that proprietary software is not ethically wrong? Well, gosh, you're not the only one. ESR is right there with you. ;) But don't take this argument so far as to pose that RMS promotes some sort of slavery. He is not. And you're free to believe what you wish. I think that in the society RMS would devise if he had the power, Free Software would be the default, not the absolute "must". Just as the current default copyright license is restrictive, in such a society the default copyright license would be unrestrictive "copyleft". This means people would be free to make the "wrong" choice if they somehow believe it to be right, but this would be a rare thing because people would benefit from copyleft more (on that much, both RMS and ESR would agree). |
| Libervis Mar 05, 2007 9:29 AM EDT |
Alright, on a second thought I am not sure RMS would allow proprietary software licensing to be legal in his society, because, quite simply if it is wrong, anti-social and gives the vendor an unproportional amount of power over the user, it is harmful to make it legal. I obviously understand that, just as much as I understand the difficulty some have at accepting this sort of view. Isn't that what being open minded is all about though? Explore this idea further to really see whether it makes sense, despite it not be so appealing? Anyway, I haven't exactly made up my mind on that one. If you ask me whether I would make proprietary software illegal or not, I would at this point say "I don't know, but we're discussing it (cause I just opened a topic about that on Libervis and if you need a link you'll have to ask for it since I wont spam the board)". :P Cheers |
| dinotrac Mar 05, 2007 9:33 AM EDT |
>I think dcparris is the right kind of example I want to put as a face of the whole Free Software community. So why focus on this small part of supposed "extremists"?? I agree. I think the Rev is almost certainly a better human being than I am. I lose patience now and then. You may have noticed! ;0) RMS is very determined and unwavering in his principles, but I would not categorize him as close-minded at all. To be unswayed is not to be close-minded. To be unswayed in the face of all fact and reason is to be close-minded. I think we see RMS's open-mindedness in the long gestation of GPLV3. He is, and should be, very slow to bend on important principles. He is, and should be, fighting to get everything he wants accomplished in the license. In my heart of hearts, I believe that he is also a realist. After all, everything he's done grew out of the rather mundane need to get a printer printing properly. Regardless of whether he ultimately makes what I would categorize as the "right" choice, he will do what he believes is in the best interest of Free Software, whether or not it is precisely what he had hoped for at the outset. He really didn't get where he is by being stupid. As to the acolytes, I know that I should be more charitable. Many, maybe most, of them are fairly new to this free software thing. It's shades and subtleties can be hard to grasp, and I can hardly blame them for holding fast to something that is clear and strong. I don't imagine their ideals will waver over time, but the depth of their knowledge and understanding will increase, thus improving the richness of the conversation. |
| tuxchick Mar 05, 2007 2:50 PM EDT |
Ok, pod person, what did you do with the real Dino?? Nicely stated. I would bow, but that leaves me in a rather more vulnerable posture than I care for. |
| dinotrac Mar 05, 2007 3:56 PM EDT |
>Ok, pod person, what did you do with the real Dino?? Spit him out. Fat old man. Looks tender, but much too chewy for my taste. You can have him. |
| jdixon Mar 05, 2007 4:39 PM EDT |
> If you ask me whether I would make proprietary software illegal or not, I would at this point say "I don't know, but we're discussing it... Well, I feel that if someone writes something, they have the right to license it as they wish. For that reason, I'd never outlaw proprietary software. I may argue against it, but I'd never want to make it illegal. |
| dinotrac Mar 05, 2007 4:58 PM EDT |
> I may argue against it, but I'd never want to make it illegal. Darned freedom lover. |
| jimf Mar 05, 2007 5:03 PM EDT |
> Well, I feel that if someone writes something, they have the right to license it as they wish. For that reason, I'd never outlaw proprietary software. I may argue against it, but I'd never want to make it illegal. I'd agree with that, and also say that it's highly unlikely that any such law would or could be passed in this world as we know it. Proprietary is going to stay with us for the foreseeable future, whether we like it or not. |
| Bob_Robertson Mar 05, 2007 8:58 PM EDT |
"If you think of this as enslaving the programmer I think you're extremely misled." If I tell someone else what they may or may not do with the product of their own labors, I enslave them. The only restriction I can place upon someone else is that they do not trespass upon me. Because we live in a society, in many cases there are societal standards which allow me to also restrict someone trespassing upon an innocent individual that is not me, but then I must stand for any harm that comes of my actions. That's all. Anything else is what is ethically and morally wrong. "You disagree that proprietary software is not ethically wrong?" No, I disagree with the statement that proprietary software _IS_ ethically wrong. The simple fact is that what you do with your own code is none of my beeswax. Release it under a proprietary license that only allows it to be used in binary form on alternate Tuesdays for all I care. You cannot force me to use it. What is ethically wrong is for me to impose my idea of right and wrong on anyone else. It is the imposition itself that is wrong. That imposition is no less wrong because someone rationalizes a really good sounding reason for enforcing that imposition. The ends do not justify the means. The FSF and supporters are more than welcome to argue, cajole, promote and decry night and day. Just don't coerce. "Well, gosh, you're not the only one. ESR is right there with you. ;)" We share several other interests as well, and disagree on many also. I think he quickly got tired of me sending spelling and grammar corrections to him concerning the CatB, TMC and his other works on his web page. He responded to the first dozen or so, then stopped replying. His photographs/videos also make him look like he hasn't bathed this decade. |
| swbrown Mar 05, 2007 9:18 PM EDT |
>>So I'm still waiting for those specific examples you can point to to justify your 'hate ESR more than they despise Bill Gates' sweeping generalization. Where are they?
>
>I'm sorry. I presumed that you had been around "Free Software" for more than a few days.
>I hope that I am not wrong in presuming that you can do your own homework. /I/ have to find supporting evidence for /your/ smear? What, are you SCO 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!