Dangerous development
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| r_a_trip Jul 24, 2009 5:07 AM EDT |
I think the current trend to label people according to ones own agenda is a very dangerous one. Regardless of what questionable actions have transpired, I think artificially dividing the community into several groups, designated arbitrarily by which opposing agendas the would be factions have, will be detrimental to the Free and Open Source Software movement. What is this talk about lists and who should be on them or not? Do we really want to descend into a world where we have to check a list first to see if a person and his opinion is acceptable to certain groups? The danger of not listening to the message, but to look at a label and then just brush off anything said as inconsequential is too large. It could kill the healthy debate on which FOSS has thrived. You disagree with me? I put you on the Faux list. You dare to use MS tech? You are now awarded a place on the MS-shill register. This immature "O yeah? You are not part of our club!" is pure PR gold for any company with an interest in slowing down the uptake of FOSS. They just have to point out how the "immature, value destroying, commie hippies" are at each others throats and then very casually tell potential customers that company X is very professional and reliable. We can only hope that this silly attempt to form "secret little clubs" blows over soon. |
| number6x Jul 24, 2009 7:20 AM EDT |
Nike used to use the slogan 'Just Do It'. When it comes to open source I tell people to 'Just use It'. Don't talk about it and debate about it endlessly. Use it and judge it on its merits. I am not wise enough to figure out all of the legal implications, but with most of the corporate world and a large enough body of users no one will ever stop Free and Open source software from being used. People who use FLOSS regularly will find that they become part of the community naturally. They will contribute through bug reporting and by setting an example to those around them. Some may even write code or documentation. FLOSS, Just Use It! (9 out of 10 floss users also avoid unwanted trips to the dentist) |
| TxtEdMacs Jul 24, 2009 8:59 AM EDT |
r_a_..., You are failing to see the positive aspects of labeling posters for proper Faux lists. I want to get on one or two to show MS I am really the person they need to surreptitiously push their agenda and sow mayhem on Linux and other Floss (do it everyday, keeps your dentist happy) sites. Then finally MS will really have their checks in the mail to me. YBT |
| tuxchick Jul 24, 2009 10:06 AM EDT |
Hmmm...Lefty Schlesinger pretty much character-assassinated RMS, but he's not a hater. All kinds of people speak out on Microsoft's lifetime history of dirty and illegal deeds, so they're haters. Linus's disdain for the FSF and enforcing the GPL are well-known, so that makes him...constructive? I dunno. Not a hater, anyways. This sounds more like someone who came up with a great pun-- 'faux-pen'-- then tried to fit an article around it. |
| Libervis Jul 24, 2009 10:08 AM EDT |
I agree we don't need silly bureaucracy (lists and list checking). I think everyone should personally be capable of judging people by themselves and that's enough. That said I don't have much of a problem with people expressing their judgments through their own venues. |
| KernelShepard Jul 24, 2009 10:52 AM EDT |
number6x: I like your approach, it's what I term the "Live and let live" approach. I think some of the people commenting here totally missed what I perceive as the point of the article. I don't see the author trying to split everyone into a "naughty" or "nice" list. Nor do I see any attacks on RMS (where did that come from?). Instead, what I see is someone who is fed up with the outrageous things going on lately, such as the things that the BoycottNovell folks seem to be up to lately. Spreading libel about developers (and companies), starting meaningless flame wars on Ubuntu mailing-lists, trying to get people fired for not doing what they demand, etc. He's tired of the people that are full of hate and do nothing to improve the viability of Linux. That seems entirely reasonable to me. But maybe I'm just projecting my own frustrations into what I read in that article. |
| number6x Jul 24, 2009 10:53 AM EDT |
Linus will always be a pragmatic. RMS will always be a fundamentalist. We would not be where we are with out them, and without their views and beliefs. There is more than enough room for both of their viewpoints and for a whole spectrum of others. |
| justintime Jul 24, 2009 12:08 PM EDT |
In response to number6x, I offer the following comment I found in the other article similar to this one:Quoting:mdi said... You can find the original comment here: http://opensourcetogo.blogspot.com/2009/07/real-floss-commun... |
| Libervis Jul 24, 2009 2:31 PM EDT |
Good points there justintime.. RMS is a pragmatist indeed, and his goal may honestly be freedom. His logic is just flawed which is probably part of the reason people call him on wanting people to have freedom *his way* and as he sees it, which isn't real freedom. But the fundamentalist remark is probably.. well.. off the mark in any case. |
| azerthoth Jul 24, 2009 2:52 PM EDT |
I think I would disagree there Lib, he is far from pragmatic, far far from it. Fundamentalism does a much better job of describing how he sets out about attaining his goals. Fundamentalism is very much a 'there is only one right way, and it is mine.' approach. Whereas the pragmatist realizes that there are possibly many ways to get to some end point and is willing to accept things that he may not personally like to accomplish that goal. |
| caitlyn Jul 24, 2009 4:09 PM EDT |
+1 azerthoth Well said. |
| Libervis Jul 24, 2009 4:10 PM EDT |
Hmm.. well I was caught up with the idea of him using copyright to establish those "four freedoms" despite copyright's draconian nature.. somehow assuming that if he were a complete fundamentalist he would reject copyright altogether. But I think you're right. He doesn't seem bent against copyright and he even seems fine with criminalizing proprietary licensing (which would be effectively hacking copyright into copyleft-by-law, forcing people to use his way of licensing) which IS quite fundamentalist I suppose. I think I *might* be a fundamentalist too though in the sense that I favor personal integrity, albeit unlike RMS I don't want to force anyone by law to anything. If I'm gonna compromise something it would be compromising only on things which are not a matter of moral principle, but a matter of taste, yet if I find something distasteful I'm unlikely to use or pursue it either. It's just I wouldn't tell people they're fundamentally unethical for doing something I find distasteful. RMS might have personal integrity in that sense too, but is from what I know operating with flawed premises. At best that's the only thing I'd hold against him, aside from simple subjective dislike of his style and strategy based on my own preferences. At worst though there's a possibility that he actually throws moral condemnation based on amoral preferences, which would be pretty bad.. but the only way to know that is to test him for moral hypocrisy. |
| justintime Jul 24, 2009 4:11 PM EDT |
just to be clear, no one is calling RMS a Faux FLOSS Fundamentalist, right? |
| caitlyn Jul 24, 2009 6:55 PM EDT |
@justintime: Fundamentalist? Yes, RMS is that. Faux? Nope, his contributions to FOSS are well known and documented. He is the real deal. |
| azerthoth Jul 24, 2009 9:21 PM EDT |
Libervis, while its true that the GPL's only teeth belong in copyright law, part of RMS's crusade is to abolish copyright for functional works entirely if not copyright itself in its entirety. I wrote on that topic some time ago, the article has the title of ' Destroying the GPL from the inside'. |
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!