Tell HN: Dear 'open source' people (on defending rms)
20 comments
The problem with hardcore ideologists is that they always end up bickering about details with other hardcore ideologists. This is fine, and it's their right to do so, but from a distance it will make the movement they all represent together look like a bunch of fighting children.
Any activist group that has ever made a difference in history has had leaders who were able to accept their minor differences and fight together for the greater good (until the fight was won, at least)
RMS is entirely incapable of separating main points from side issues. This makes it impossible for him to make peace with people who are, in fact, on his side. How can you expect someone like that to ever gain the amount of support needed to really push a globally relevant point forward? The world of software isn't a village council.
This man might have been a great programmer, but as an activist, he's a joke.
Any activist group that has ever made a difference in history has had leaders who were able to accept their minor differences and fight together for the greater good (until the fight was won, at least)
RMS is entirely incapable of separating main points from side issues. This makes it impossible for him to make peace with people who are, in fact, on his side. How can you expect someone like that to ever gain the amount of support needed to really push a globally relevant point forward? The world of software isn't a village council.
This man might have been a great programmer, but as an activist, he's a joke.
This man might have been a great programmer, but as an activist, he's a joke.
Activists raise consciouness of an issue, and he seems to be doing that quite fine - who else is fighting the same fight with the effectiveness he is? If he weren't around... where are the public figures making his argument and getting press inches?
Also, minor differences he's capable of - he's apparently given up on the hurd kernel due to the linux kernel being top dog, despite not fully approving of it.
Activists raise consciouness of an issue, and he seems to be doing that quite fine - who else is fighting the same fight with the effectiveness he is? If he weren't around... where are the public figures making his argument and getting press inches?
Also, minor differences he's capable of - he's apparently given up on the hurd kernel due to the linux kernel being top dog, despite not fully approving of it.
> Activists raise consciouness of an issue, and he seems to be doing that quite fine
Are you sure? Afaik, he's only reaching us, insiders. If you want to convince a non-nerd about using free software, would you dare using material that RMS produced? Would you show them a recording of him speaking?
> Also, minor differences he's capable of - he's apparently given up on the hurd kernel due to the linux kernel being top dog, despite not fully approving of it.
That's super fucking nobody-cares-about-that-shit minor. Really. Which kernel you use is not what free software is about.
Are you sure? Afaik, he's only reaching us, insiders. If you want to convince a non-nerd about using free software, would you dare using material that RMS produced? Would you show them a recording of him speaking?
> Also, minor differences he's capable of - he's apparently given up on the hurd kernel due to the linux kernel being top dog, despite not fully approving of it.
That's super fucking nobody-cares-about-that-shit minor. Really. Which kernel you use is not what free software is about.
If you read the dead comment below, you'll see he's very popular in the developing word. As for the developed world, what tech activists get any more traction with the non-nerds? It's not just a matter of saying 'here, my friend, watch this' as that doesn't really happen, it's a matter of the message being raised and pursued. No-one is going to make a non-nerd sit through a lecture on software patents, no matter who does the speaking. But guys like RMS keep us aware that there is an issue.
Regarding the dead comment itself, I have absolutely no idea why the comment below is dead - it simply says he's popular, then uses Jobs' own words about misfits and troublemakers to defend the man. Apparently HN has interpreted this as "misfits and troublemakers you like", which kinda runs counter to the context of the paragraph. RMS fits almost everything in the comment.
The fact that that comment is dead - polite, informative, insightful - is just further evidence that the moderation system on HN needs an overhaul.
Regarding the dead comment itself, I have absolutely no idea why the comment below is dead - it simply says he's popular, then uses Jobs' own words about misfits and troublemakers to defend the man. Apparently HN has interpreted this as "misfits and troublemakers you like", which kinda runs counter to the context of the paragraph. RMS fits almost everything in the comment.
The fact that that comment is dead - polite, informative, insightful - is just further evidence that the moderation system on HN needs an overhaul.
You are right he only reaches insiders, but I don't think that is a problem: you also need the hardcore activists that preach to the other activists, to keep them straight on target. Outside of people like RMS and foundations like Debian, 'free' has become polluted in all kinds of ways. At some poiny, RMS no longer needed to evangelize 'free software', as plenty of others are doing that already. Instead, watches the watchers. And they watch him and grumble, rightfully and wrongfully.
When speaking publicly, RMS is often tactless, offensive, and socially inept. The "emacs virgins" debacle wasn't an issue of "political correctness," nor is the dust up over his comments on Steve Jobs' passing.
Granted, there may be a utilitarian point regarding Jobs' work to advance closed platforms, and his death meaning he won't be able to do so any longer, but to spit on his grave? Absolutely uncalled for.
We should expect more from our leaders.
Granted, there may be a utilitarian point regarding Jobs' work to advance closed platforms, and his death meaning he won't be able to do so any longer, but to spit on his grave? Absolutely uncalled for.
We should expect more from our leaders.
Oh get over yourself.
My condolences if you knew Mr Jobs personally, but really, spat on his grave? Stallman did nothing of the sort.
What Stallman did was address the practical change for free software that Steve Jobs removal from leadership at Apple would make. That's it. The manner of removal RMS notes as undeserved.
My condolences if you knew Mr Jobs personally, but really, spat on his grave? Stallman did nothing of the sort.
What Stallman did was address the practical change for free software that Steve Jobs removal from leadership at Apple would make. That's it. The manner of removal RMS notes as undeserved.
People keep saying this and I don't really want get into a philosophical debate about it, but Steve Jobs has not been at the helm of Apple since January of this year and officially resigned in August. I'm not saying that RMS is spitting on his grave but if Steve Jobs' "removal" from Apple was really the catalyst in provoking such remarks surely they were due in January or August, no?
Are campaigns like Bad Vista and Windows Sins really promoting free software, or bagging on non-free software? It is campaigns like these that can make you question, does the FSF really send the right message about free software. They certainly have a lot of positive campaigns, but some people could be put off by the almost 'smear campaigns' that the FSF supports.
"There are those who always speak of themselves, and they are either insecure or proud. There are those who always speak of others. They are usually very boring. There are those who speak of stirring ideas, compelling books, .."
I too thought the Bad Vista campaign was in horribly taste and ineffective. Hell, it wasn't too horribly accurate either from what I remember.
I too thought the Bad Vista campaign was in horribly taste and ineffective. Hell, it wasn't too horribly accurate either from what I remember.
When the concerns of an individual are focussed so intently on a particular licensing agreement for their works that they lose the perspective that the death of any being is a sad thing. At that point, I’m afraid, I no longer can regard that person as sane, i.e. in control of their own mind.
I am grateful for the work the FSF has done in the past, but I’m also grateful for the work Steve Jobs has done.
Fanatical and extremist views lead to misery for the owner of the views and for those they effect. It doesn’t matter if the views are religious, political or just software licenses.
I don’t believe you need to defend RMS - I can separate the ideas from the man. However the FSF has just had it’s reputation burnt severely and if they want to have any useful contribution towards the ongoing debate about how best to move the industry forward they should reconsider the ir public image.
That is if they want to increase their support and not end up a fringe group.
I’m a great fan of open source software and have been for the last 23 years but let’s be clear - the producer of software always has the right to choose what license they have, that is their freedom and that was the freedom that Steve Jobs like many others chose. Sometimes the license was open source (Darwin, WebKit etc.) sometime it wasn’t, he chose, that was his freedom as the producer of the work. Freedom is such a loaded word but how often do we stop to see the freedom of other people not just our own when we cry it’s name.
When people cannot see the freedoms of others but only talk about their own freedom, be suspicious. Because their agenda is the most important thing to them, not the wellbeing of others.
I wish a long life to RMS, to the FSF and to open source itself. I would like to see a very quick end to a world view that is filled with contempt and hate for other people which is poisoning all three.
I am grateful for the work the FSF has done in the past, but I’m also grateful for the work Steve Jobs has done.
Fanatical and extremist views lead to misery for the owner of the views and for those they effect. It doesn’t matter if the views are religious, political or just software licenses.
I don’t believe you need to defend RMS - I can separate the ideas from the man. However the FSF has just had it’s reputation burnt severely and if they want to have any useful contribution towards the ongoing debate about how best to move the industry forward they should reconsider the ir public image.
That is if they want to increase their support and not end up a fringe group.
I’m a great fan of open source software and have been for the last 23 years but let’s be clear - the producer of software always has the right to choose what license they have, that is their freedom and that was the freedom that Steve Jobs like many others chose. Sometimes the license was open source (Darwin, WebKit etc.) sometime it wasn’t, he chose, that was his freedom as the producer of the work. Freedom is such a loaded word but how often do we stop to see the freedom of other people not just our own when we cry it’s name.
When people cannot see the freedoms of others but only talk about their own freedom, be suspicious. Because their agenda is the most important thing to them, not the wellbeing of others.
I wish a long life to RMS, to the FSF and to open source itself. I would like to see a very quick end to a world view that is filled with contempt and hate for other people which is poisoning all three.
More character assassination. I have no particular fondness for RMS, but the amount of character assassination he receives is incredible. I think he's a crazy loon, but a harmless one.
In his own words, he said "Nobody deserves to have to die". He said these words on his own blog, and separated the ideas of Jobs (glad to see gone) from the man of Jobs (not glad to see gone), just like you yourself claim to about RMS. He didn't go out to another publication or stand on the FSF soapbox. He mentioned those words on his personal blog. This whole 'burnt reputation' has little to do with what he actually said, and more to do with people intentionally misreading it and being wilfully offended.
Also, philosophically speaking, it can be quite normal for the death of a human being to not be sad. (let alone any being, quit gilding the lily - most humans don't feel sad about meat animals, let alone fish in general or lower order animals)
If you've known anyone who has had to suffer a long, lingering, painful death, the actual occurence of their death can be an escape from sadness, a relief, even peaceful.
In his own words, he said "Nobody deserves to have to die". He said these words on his own blog, and separated the ideas of Jobs (glad to see gone) from the man of Jobs (not glad to see gone), just like you yourself claim to about RMS. He didn't go out to another publication or stand on the FSF soapbox. He mentioned those words on his personal blog. This whole 'burnt reputation' has little to do with what he actually said, and more to do with people intentionally misreading it and being wilfully offended.
Also, philosophically speaking, it can be quite normal for the death of a human being to not be sad. (let alone any being, quit gilding the lily - most humans don't feel sad about meat animals, let alone fish in general or lower order animals)
If you've known anyone who has had to suffer a long, lingering, painful death, the actual occurence of their death can be an escape from sadness, a relief, even peaceful.
Who died and made RMS the King of England? That is his definition of Free Software and he is welcome to it. Not everyone else follows his definition, in fact I would say most don't. So much so that his pronouncements about this and that violates Freedom turn people off the movement. His inability to function as public figure just makes it worse(ie his publication about SJ's death being a victory for Freedom.)
He has done some great stuff, that doesn't excuse his faults. Basically him being the leader of the free software movement reminds me of the old line about being promoted to the level of greatest incompetence. When people talk about him stepping down they mean as president of the FSF. They want to see the organization focus on being useful rather than being ideological because they think the ideological stance rather marginalizes the movement. I know when I come into contact with free software 9 out of 10 times the FSF isn't involved.
He has done some great stuff, that doesn't excuse his faults. Basically him being the leader of the free software movement reminds me of the old line about being promoted to the level of greatest incompetence. When people talk about him stepping down they mean as president of the FSF. They want to see the organization focus on being useful rather than being ideological because they think the ideological stance rather marginalizes the movement. I know when I come into contact with free software 9 out of 10 times the FSF isn't involved.
If you dont follow fsf's definition of 'Free Software', then
1) Why would you care if FSF is ideological or practical?
2) Why dont you define your meaning of 'free software' and give it a name? Thats what esr did and named it open source.
If you dont care about free software (with rms'es definition), why do you want FSF to function differet? Why would you care? Why would FSF and rms chage their direction towards what you value as 'software freedom'?
If you dont care about free software (with rms'es definition), why do you want FSF to function differet? Why would you care? Why would FSF and rms chage their direction towards what you value as 'software freedom'?
Why dont you define your meaning of 'free software' and give it a name?
I already have it is called free software. Look at the founding of any movement from Alan Kay and Object Oriented programming to Christ and Christianity, founding a movement allows you to push the world in a given direction. It doesn't make you king who gets to lord over every last thought of members of the movement.
Why do I care if the FSF is practical or ideological? Simple I believe in free software and think it could be so much more. However when FSF goes off on its ideological jaunts, it hurts free software. When ESR and RMS had their little spat that lead to the creation of OSI it hurt the movement. When the president of the FSF leaves little notes about how the world is better place because someone is dead it hurts the movement. I don't care what the FSF does so long as it quits trying to kill free software.
I already have it is called free software. Look at the founding of any movement from Alan Kay and Object Oriented programming to Christ and Christianity, founding a movement allows you to push the world in a given direction. It doesn't make you king who gets to lord over every last thought of members of the movement.
Why do I care if the FSF is practical or ideological? Simple I believe in free software and think it could be so much more. However when FSF goes off on its ideological jaunts, it hurts free software. When ESR and RMS had their little spat that lead to the creation of OSI it hurt the movement. When the president of the FSF leaves little notes about how the world is better place because someone is dead it hurts the movement. I don't care what the FSF does so long as it quits trying to kill free software.
I wouldn't care, if people would stop posting braindumps like this and RMS's here...
RMS is one of the primary reasons I stopped contributing to gcc.
RMS did huge amounts of damage with his "EMACS virgins" joke to women in computing, and has never apologised.
At the end of the day, I believe the days he is a help to the open source movement are over. He is now a major hinderance.
RMS did huge amounts of damage with his "EMACS virgins" joke to women in computing, and has never apologised.
At the end of the day, I believe the days he is a help to the open source movement are over. He is now a major hinderance.
Your response to objection number 1 misses the point.
The issue is what critical thinkers would recognize as an equivocation fallacy: It's one thing to classify certain software as 'free' according to a particular definition. It's another thing to attribute a moral judgment to something by using a certain term such as 'free'.
Objection number 1 is about Stallman's use of the word 'free' in the second sense. Your response is about the use of the word 'free' is the first sense. Therefore, you either misunderstood the critics, or you're deliberately erecting a straw man.
My guess is on the first interpretation: "Please, feel free to use any proprietary software you want." is the opposite of what the Free Software movement is all about: One should not use proprietary software! It's evil, according to Stallman.
The issue is what critical thinkers would recognize as an equivocation fallacy: It's one thing to classify certain software as 'free' according to a particular definition. It's another thing to attribute a moral judgment to something by using a certain term such as 'free'.
Objection number 1 is about Stallman's use of the word 'free' in the second sense. Your response is about the use of the word 'free' is the first sense. Therefore, you either misunderstood the critics, or you're deliberately erecting a straw man.
My guess is on the first interpretation: "Please, feel free to use any proprietary software you want." is the opposite of what the Free Software movement is all about: One should not use proprietary software! It's evil, according to Stallman.
Many vegetarians believe eating meat is evil. They tell me "you should not eat meat, it is evil".
I agree with them, and yet I eat meat, especially when my mother / girlfriend cooks it for me. Are vegetarians going to moral-judge me? Some of them might; Others would just see me as "strong" enough to resist meat.
With most politicians, the more you listen to them the more inconsistencies you will find. rms, however, is remarkably consistent and is unrelentingly principled.
I wish I were only one-tenth as principled as rms. Then I can reject meat and only use Free software. Alas, I'm not, so... rms can moral-judge me and I won't mind.
I don't think that prevents me from being a support of either causes, however.
I agree with them, and yet I eat meat, especially when my mother / girlfriend cooks it for me. Are vegetarians going to moral-judge me? Some of them might; Others would just see me as "strong" enough to resist meat.
With most politicians, the more you listen to them the more inconsistencies you will find. rms, however, is remarkably consistent and is unrelentingly principled.
I wish I were only one-tenth as principled as rms. Then I can reject meat and only use Free software. Alas, I'm not, so... rms can moral-judge me and I won't mind.
I don't think that prevents me from being a support of either causes, however.
I'm not quite sure what you're trying to tell me.
I didn't say that Stallman has no principles, or that he is inconsistent. For me, there's just one main question: Is his conclusion -- that all software should be free software -- rational?
To be rational, a conclusion should follow logically from true premises and at least one fundamental moral principle. It's been a while since I studied Stallman's writings, but back then, I fail to find any sound argument. It was mostly just logical fallacies. Since I doubt, he changed his arguments, this probably still holds true. If so, this is a sufficient reason for me to not support his cause.
I didn't say that Stallman has no principles, or that he is inconsistent. For me, there's just one main question: Is his conclusion -- that all software should be free software -- rational?
To be rational, a conclusion should follow logically from true premises and at least one fundamental moral principle. It's been a while since I studied Stallman's writings, but back then, I fail to find any sound argument. It was mostly just logical fallacies. Since I doubt, he changed his arguments, this probably still holds true. If so, this is a sufficient reason for me to not support his cause.
You trotted out his point of view: "One should not use proprietary software! It's evil, according to Stallman.", sounding like it is because of his moral judgement that you do not support him.
I think, all ideas should be given due consideration. Those that turn out to be wrong should be dismissed. The idea of the Free Software movement appears to be a wrong idea, and should be dismissed. The idea of the Open Source movement ('Some software should be free'), though, seems to be a right idea.
I don't understand the purpose of this post. You're not asking anything, you're defending RMS with some incredibly shallow logic and then presumptuously chastising us for not caring about free software ideals, mixed with some ad hominem attacks.
Honestly, you are missing, or dismissing, important points - e.g. normal humans need software and devices and they can actually use - and the ad hominem arguments in the latter half of your post are completely out of line here on HN. If you want to have a discussion we can have a discussion but you have failed to start a good one on the right foot.
Honestly, you are missing, or dismissing, important points - e.g. normal humans need software and devices and they can actually use - and the ad hominem arguments in the latter half of your post are completely out of line here on HN. If you want to have a discussion we can have a discussion but you have failed to start a good one on the right foot.
Sadly I have a feeling RMS is destined to follow the path of Ted Nelson. Visionary and important, but largely forgotten or derided. Or maybe Cassandra, destined to wander the earth spouting prophecies the world takes no notice of, while people complain about him freaking out the Trojans.
WTF people!?! RMS is guilty of bad taste. Let's move on.
I dunno, I am one of the largest supporters of FOSS outside of the likes of RMS and Linus and ESR and co.
However, I'm going to repeat something I've said before (and I think before on HN as well): I did not celebrate the death of Saddam and Osama, and I'm sure as hell not going to start with Steve Jobs.
I did not agree with every one of his business decisions, but I think he was an interesting guy. He did things no one else did, and he made a few enemies doing it.
I know a lot of people will shoot me down for saying this, but a large part of RMS's beef with Apple is Apple used BSD licensed software according to the BSD license. They didn't have to give back to the community, the license doesn't require it... but they did.
RMS largely hates BSD licenses because they don't require further code to be Free, and you know what? No one cares. If a company thinks they can wade into a market that already has a major competitor (the code they're "ripping off"), then let them.
So yeah, RMS is the destroyer of public relations for FSF, and hes a bastard beyond measure. But when RMS dies (in the next 20-30 years), I'm not going to celebrate his death, I'm going to remember what he did that was right and try to learn from that.
The golden rule of society is "don't be a douchebag", and it would be great if everyone followed that rule even if they follow none of the rest.
However, I'm going to repeat something I've said before (and I think before on HN as well): I did not celebrate the death of Saddam and Osama, and I'm sure as hell not going to start with Steve Jobs.
I did not agree with every one of his business decisions, but I think he was an interesting guy. He did things no one else did, and he made a few enemies doing it.
I know a lot of people will shoot me down for saying this, but a large part of RMS's beef with Apple is Apple used BSD licensed software according to the BSD license. They didn't have to give back to the community, the license doesn't require it... but they did.
RMS largely hates BSD licenses because they don't require further code to be Free, and you know what? No one cares. If a company thinks they can wade into a market that already has a major competitor (the code they're "ripping off"), then let them.
So yeah, RMS is the destroyer of public relations for FSF, and hes a bastard beyond measure. But when RMS dies (in the next 20-30 years), I'm not going to celebrate his death, I'm going to remember what he did that was right and try to learn from that.
The golden rule of society is "don't be a douchebag", and it would be great if everyone followed that rule even if they follow none of the rest.
> You occasionally drop a few hundred lines of code on github and then think you are a contributor to Free Software?
Yes I do. Github being is so successful these days is proof that FOSS matters. FOSS is not only about kernels, compilers and emacs. Those things were just the start.
Being able to use a fully open stack from the bootloader to the javascript library and be as productive as with closed platforms means a lot, and it owes not only to FSF's activism, but also to the software community.
Rails wasn't born out of the desire of spreading ~free software~ ideals. It was born out of the desire of changing the world of web development. And why is it open source, then? Because it was the best option, and still is. A community was born around it and the results are as good (or better) than anything a company could make just by hiring.
Today, with things like GitHub, the barriers to free software are pretty much gone. Everyone can contribute. This is infinitely better than Stallman's 'cathedral'. I can not only look at, thinker and modify somebody else's code: I can effectively give back to the creators in a matter of seconds, and then, suddenly, I become one of the creators myself.
Seriously, your post full of fallacies.
Everyone is free to criticize Stallman on this point. Don't try to invalidate their criticism just because they haven't written a GCC or an Emacs.
So, yes, I am part of free software, but I don't want anything to do with FSF or Stallman. I want to win this open vs closed fight by fighting with my code. Not by pissing on someone's grave.
Yes I do. Github being is so successful these days is proof that FOSS matters. FOSS is not only about kernels, compilers and emacs. Those things were just the start.
Being able to use a fully open stack from the bootloader to the javascript library and be as productive as with closed platforms means a lot, and it owes not only to FSF's activism, but also to the software community.
Rails wasn't born out of the desire of spreading ~free software~ ideals. It was born out of the desire of changing the world of web development. And why is it open source, then? Because it was the best option, and still is. A community was born around it and the results are as good (or better) than anything a company could make just by hiring.
Today, with things like GitHub, the barriers to free software are pretty much gone. Everyone can contribute. This is infinitely better than Stallman's 'cathedral'. I can not only look at, thinker and modify somebody else's code: I can effectively give back to the creators in a matter of seconds, and then, suddenly, I become one of the creators myself.
Seriously, your post full of fallacies.
Everyone is free to criticize Stallman on this point. Don't try to invalidate their criticism just because they haven't written a GCC or an Emacs.
So, yes, I am part of free software, but I don't want anything to do with FSF or Stallman. I want to win this open vs closed fight by fighting with my code. Not by pissing on someone's grave.
No, Im not saying your code is worthless. Im saying your reasons for contributing and dropping the code wasnt and isnt 'Free Software'. As you mentioned, its 'Open vs. Closed'.
Also, rms did not piss on his grave. He respectfully said that he's happy that Steve Jobs couldnt affect the computer world anymore.
Also, rms did not piss on his grave. He respectfully said that he's happy that Steve Jobs couldnt affect the computer world anymore.
In my own interactions with RMS he has not been totally nice (he once asked me about releasing one of my old Springer-Verlag Lisp books under the FSF doc license, I did not have the original files, I didn't want to type in the book myself, and he seemed testy) but I feel like defending him.
RMS has done a lot in the past to make my life as a developer much better. Some irony, typing this on my MacBook: I think that we are going to lose a lot of freedoms in the future: controlled computer hardware, loss of open media, loss of open internet, ...., the list goes on...
Logically, we should all be throwing our support behing FSF, EFF, some of the few rational political movements supporting personal freedom, etc. because once the tipping point is reached where we lose freedoms, it is likely we will not get them back.
I am an older hacker (60) and you may disagree with me and my world view, but just take a look at history to see cases when people did not stand up for their rights and lost them.
So, a tip of the hat to RMS, and thanks to him.
RMS has done a lot in the past to make my life as a developer much better. Some irony, typing this on my MacBook: I think that we are going to lose a lot of freedoms in the future: controlled computer hardware, loss of open media, loss of open internet, ...., the list goes on...
Logically, we should all be throwing our support behing FSF, EFF, some of the few rational political movements supporting personal freedom, etc. because once the tipping point is reached where we lose freedoms, it is likely we will not get them back.
I am an older hacker (60) and you may disagree with me and my world view, but just take a look at history to see cases when people did not stand up for their rights and lost them.
So, a tip of the hat to RMS, and thanks to him.
I've never advocated finding another leader of the FSF ... But I am afraid that it will become completely irrelevant if it's viewed as an extremist organization. I think the real danger is that it's membership will decide not to be associated with it and it's funding will dry up. RMS hasn't really said where his income comes from, but I'm assuming he's paid as the FSF's leader. Assuming that RMS' marketable skills revolve around software, wouldn't it be ironic if he had to develop closed software to support himself? Given his current extremist stance, I suspect he'd choose to starve first.
According to [1], his income is from speeches. The Form990 filed by the FSF [2] (If I understand it correctly) confirms he does not get any salary from the FSF.
1) http://blog.mypapit.net/2005/06/richard-stallman-admits-his-... 2) http://tfcny.fdncenter.org/990_pdf_archive/042/042888848/042...
1) http://blog.mypapit.net/2005/06/richard-stallman-admits-his-... 2) http://tfcny.fdncenter.org/990_pdf_archive/042/042888848/042...
I stand corrected ... though alienating his followers would be even more problematic then.
Stallman is autistic.
He has poor taste when it comes to social interaction.
http://books.google.co.in/books?id=ltrpsRyTn-wC&pg=PA31&...
End of story?
End of story?
>The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements (and modified versions in general) to the public, so that the whole community benefits.
...
>you dont have the right to change the meaning of term for the sake of argument.
So we should have the right to improve software, but not to improve the definition of words (or to use them the way that most people typically do)? Time to fight back against this tyrany and start the Free Language Foundation.
...
>you dont have the right to change the meaning of term for the sake of argument.
So we should have the right to improve software, but not to improve the definition of words (or to use them the way that most people typically do)? Time to fight back against this tyrany and start the Free Language Foundation.
FSF and rms are unrelenting principled. There are not many other political organisations I trust more than the FSF. None, in fact. I commend you for speaking up. Thank you.
Nice job! Most people pretend to 'get' rms and free software when it suits them.
Thank you. It's a tad unfortunate that you have had to spend/waste time to explain this , but, I think it was needed. Much appreciated.
Worse than crazy, he's right.
1) "To me, free is the freedom to use whatever I want, including propertiary software."
In this context, when we talk about 'Freedom', we mean 'Free Software'. Fortunately, Richard Stallman, they guy you are bashing about, defined the term 'free software'.
Freedom 0: The freedom to run the program for any purpose.
Freedom 1: The freedom to study how the program works, and change it to make it do what you wish.
Freedom 2: The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor.
Freedom 3: The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements (and modified versions in general) to the public, so that the whole community benefits.
This is what 'Free Software' means. Please, feel free to use any propertiary software you want. But please dont try changing or misusing the 'Free Software' term. This is the software freedom rms talks about. When arguing about 'Free Software' you dont have the right to change the meaning of term for the sake of argument.
2) "Richard Stallman is crazy. We should replace him with someone more practical."
Free Software Foundation is an ideologic campaign. Its not a Software Project. Its not there to create a fancy UI for your desktop. Its there to pusht the concept of 'Software Freedom'. FSF doesnt care about quality of software. Their priority is freedom.
GNU project, on the other hand, is a software project. It includes many many software projects, created by hundreds of programmers around the world. You probably have emacs, gcc and gnu coreutils on one of your devices. These are written by rms. He has doe more. Way more.
He puts his work where his mouth his. He has done some high-profile work. He IS a practical person.
GNU project is a software project. Richard Stallman created it. Created emacs, gnu coreutils, gcc and many other projects on it. He has done A LOT on his 'practical' side of efforts.
FSF should NOT be run by people who would give up a penny on software freedom for practical reasons. Because insisting on software freedom is its mission.
3) "Richard Stallman is politically incorrect." Yes he is. That is the way he is. Like it or not. Respect his individuality. Not everyone should be 'politically corect'. However, that doesnt mean he is 'wrong'. Most of the times, he is a very harsh guy making very valid points.
4) "rms should 'step down'." rms should step down as what? As the leader of Free Software `movement`? Well, there is no official 'leader' on this movement. Its just that people value his words ad his work. And he earned it.
Now, you say he should step down as the president of Free Software Foundation? Why? He is the founder of FSF. He drives it the way he wants. If you (or anyone else) think you could do a better job of pushing free software through an organization, GO DO IT. Free Software Foundation is not the 'exclusive' supporter of Free Software.
(There are already other orgaizations like FSFE)
Now, enough defending rms. I dont think he needs me or anyone else to 'defend' him. As a matter of fact, I bet he would argue me about many things I write here.
Lets talk about you this time.
Most of you are the people who use propertiary software. Even develop (or dont mind developing) and selling propertiary software and its 100% ok to you. You use Macs and iPhones because they have a litte bit fancier user interfaces. You praise Apple because its products are 'slick'. You would immediately choose a propertiary software if its technicaly 'a little bit' ahead.
You occasionally drop a few hundred lines of code on github and then think you are a contributor to Free Software? No. Your reasons for sharing that piece of software is usually very 'Open Source'. You do it because you want a good resume. You do it because it gets you credit and karma. You do it because its fancy. Most of you dont do it because of Free Software. You dont actually care about Free Software.
Disclaimer: Im among you. Im not like rms either. We barely have people like rms. Thats what makes him noble and the right person to lead the Free Software movement.
Sorry for not-good-enough English.
Edit:Formatting.