Weekly Edition
Return to the Press page
| |||||||||||
How to be a Free Software zealot (NewsForge)
Robin 'Roblimo' Miller has some
fun with free software zealotry. "This is when you either pass
or fail the zealot/radical test. If you are an advocate, you want to
convert someone. You speak to them on their level, you don't sneer at them,
and you give them good reasons why they should hear you out. And perhaps,
sooner or later, you get them to (at least partially) agree with
you."
(Log in to post comments)
great! name calling and straw men Posted Oct 22, 2004 17:55 UTC (Fri) by stevenj (guest, #421) [Link] Why does LWN link to this kind of silly, inflammatory article? Please don't emulate or propagate Roblimo's Slashdot model.
great! name calling and straw men
great! name calling and straw men Posted Oct 22, 2004 21:14 UTC (Fri) by tjc (guest, #137) [Link] Au contraire. I consider myself to be a bit of an expert on inflammatory articles, and thought this one was quite good.
great! name calling and straw men Posted Oct 23, 2004 1:42 UTC (Sat) by job (guest, #670) [Link] I agree. While this could probably be made funny, this was a lousy try.
great! name calling and straw men Posted Oct 23, 2004 21:07 UTC (Sat) by dve (guest, #15903) [Link] I thought it was sensible, straightforward, and not at all silly. Mind you, I didn't find it humorous, either. I don't think it was intended to be. It made a point, gave examples, and whether I agree with the content or ideas doesn't matter. If it did, I'd be one of those anti-freedom people we all agree that we don't like, right? :)
irrational, incendiary arguments Posted Oct 23, 2004 21:45 UTC (Sat) by stevenj (guest, #421) [Link] The problem is that the "point" was made by name-calling ("zealots") and straw men (fabricated "quotations"). That's why it's merely flamebait, and inappropriate for any site that aspires to serious journalism.
great! name calling and straw men Posted Oct 25, 2004 4:46 UTC (Mon) by hppnq (subscriber, #14462) [Link] What's the problem exactly? You are offended by the term "zealot"? Look it up in your favourite dictionary, it's a perfectly normal term; much more so than the names some reserve for Windows users sometimes.There's no doubt that there are many people out there to whom the term "zealot" applies. They are the ones that will not compromise, that will adhere to their principles at all cost, to the point those principles will never be realised in the real world. And that's not what we want, right? I don't think the article was particularly clever or deep, but it clearly points out the importance of knowing what's important and what's not.
great! name calling and straw men Posted Oct 25, 2004 13:11 UTC (Mon) by stevenj (guest, #421) [Link] The word "moron" is also a perfectly ordinary word that appears in every English dictionary. Applied to people, it was initially a medical term, but it now has derogatory implications. Similarly, "zealot" has derogatory implications, and that's how it is used here; it is disingenuous to pretend otherwise. For one thing, this is an ad hominem attack (as opposed to criticizing someone's words or actions) and shouldn't appear in the first place. Worse, simply calling someone a zealot (or "irrational", or ...) as the premise rather than the conclusion of a criticism (no, fabricated "quotations" don't count as supporting arguments) is mere schoolyard name-calling. Neither ad hominem attacks, nor name-calling, nor straw-men arguments, have any place in a site that aspires to serious journalism. They are useful in a site like Slashdot that relies on flamewars to draw readers and contributors, but I hope LWN doesn't go in that direction. (Nor can the article defend itself by claiming that it doesn't actually name specific entities in its hypothetical criticisms; that's sophistry, because we all know what philosophy's adherents it is trying to besmirch.)
great! name calling and straw men Posted Oct 25, 2004 15:46 UTC (Mon) by hppnq (subscriber, #14462) [Link] Wow, you read a lot more into this article than I do.Since you did't get it, here's the definition of "zealot": a fanatically committed person -- no offense here, unless it is taken. Contrast that with the definition of moron. Obviously the article was meant to drive home a point by exaggerating it. It was deliberately worded to reflect a "typical" conversation between a "zealot" and what one could call an "average Open Source community member". One could say the zealot does not come across as the cleverest or most rational of people, so the article is a bit unfair, but that doesn't justify the kind of comments that this article has received here, and this portrayal of the zealot is, again, deliberate. You swallowed it hook, line and sinker -- but there was no bait. (By the way: the quality of sites like Slashdot, and to a lesser extent LWN, is not only determined by the articles that are selected by the editors, but also by the comments of their readers.)
How to be a Free Software zealot (NewsForge) Posted Oct 23, 2004 1:11 UTC (Sat) by mgalgoci (subscriber, #24168) [Link] I have yet to see something written by robin miller that isn't a bunch of silly inflammatory wanking.
Robin is having a bad mood today Posted Oct 23, 2004 14:28 UTC (Sat) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link] I agree with everyone else that this doesn't belong in LWN. Robin is having a bad mood today. He's pissed off about the election, among other things. It's right to be pissed off about the election, but if he is, he should be writing about the election.Bruce
Robin is having a bad mood today Posted Oct 23, 2004 15:22 UTC (Sat) by danw6144 (guest, #14336) [Link] How dare he attack the ONE TRUE faith.ITS HERESY !!! Troll! TrolL! TRoll! TroLL! tRoLl! trOll! tROLl! troLl! TrOLL!
Sanctus, Sanctus, Sanctus
Nice ad hominem attack Posted Oct 23, 2004 18:37 UTC (Sat) by robla (subscriber, #424) [Link] Whether he's pissed off about the election or not, that's not what he wrote about. He wrote a rant about being frustrated with free software idealists, which is something I can relate to, even if his approach is not the tactic I would have used myself.
We need both idealists to forge the frontier, and the pragmatists to bring up the rear. Without at least some of the idealists, the movement wouldn't move. Without at least some of the pragmatists, the movement would be crushed. Some of the idealists hurt the movement with poisonous rhetoric that discredits the movement. Some of the pragmatists hurt the movement by making poor tradeoffs.
So, Robin seems a little pissed off at those idealists that hurt the movement with poisonous rhetoric. Having been on the receiving end of a lot of personal attacks for being involved with a less-than-100% pure open source effort, I know there are at least some people in this world who need to read what Robin has written.
Rob
Nice ad hominem attack Posted Oct 23, 2004 22:06 UTC (Sat) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link] OK, I wasn't going to take the trouble to decompose his piece, but since you don't seem to notice the problems with it:Zealot: He didn't call it GNU/Linux! And the Apache license isn't free enough! If Robin were to read what the FSF actually has to say about the Apache license, he'd see:
FSF talking about "practical problems" and it being OK to run software under a license they'd prefer you not apply stinks of the pragmatism Robin would have you believe they eschew. To be a true Free Software zealot, you should avoid using software whose license is not compatible with the GPL, especially if it uses one of the licenses on this list. Zealot: Yeah! These licenses aren't compatible with the GPL. But ... umm ... I kind of like Mozilla (and I like Firefox a lot), and my Web site runs on Apache, so ... umm ...
The others on this list vary in their perniciousness. Some are awful, some are just a little bit out of bounds and need to be looked at with care. The Open Source folks, too, draw a line and point out what crosses that line as something to be avoided. It's all in the OSD. One reason for the tremendous success of Open Source is the partnership enforced by those license terms. Zealot: You didn't call it "Point and Click GNU/Linux"! You suck! Actually, Zealot, I have a whole chapter called "Joining the Linux Community" that starts with GNU, not Linux. I decided that, just once, a book about Linux was going to tell the story of how it came about from the beginning instead of starting with Linus Torvalds. It sounds as if Robin answers this one himself. Friend, I'm sorry to be the first one to tell you this, but hardly anyone spends much time thinking about software licenses or patents. ... They click on EULAs without thinking about them. Yes, I am able to run a lucrative expert-witness practice because people do this, and get their bosses sued. And I sell IP For Engineers classes to those bosses who don't want to end up in court. Not caring gets you into lots of trouble. So, the only answer to someone who says "people don't care about that" is "they're stupid. and they'll pay for it eventually". Bruce
Nice ad hominem attack Posted Oct 23, 2004 22:19 UTC (Sat) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link] Oops, I missed the Mozilla issue.Almost all Mozilla software is available under LGPL or GPL. So, the Mozilla folks seem to appreciate the problems with their own license, too, and Mozilla is indeed free enough for Free Software Zealots. Bruce
Nice ad hominem attack Posted Oct 24, 2004 21:39 UTC (Sun) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] The problems with non-GPL-compatible free software are partly due to network effects. There is far more GPL code out there than code that is licensed under some GPL-incompatible license, so whenever someone makes the mistake of choosing a different license, they usually wind up dual-licensing, and that's exactly what Mozilla did. Objecting to licenses that impose restrictions beyond what the GPL imposes is often done on a purely pragmatic basis; it makes a software island of code that can't be used anywhere else.(This is also a problem with the FSF's GFDL license, but that's another discussion).
Nice ad hominem attack Posted Oct 25, 2004 2:56 UTC (Mon) by job (guest, #670) [Link] Mozilla Firefox should be considered non-free, IMHO. They use theirtrademark to protect their product: Yes, you are allowed to distribute and modify it, but you are NOT allowed to use the name neither the graphics(!). IMHO, the graphics is an integral part of a GUI software package. Ergo: non-free. (Note: the fact that all Linux distributors distribute Mozilla doesn't change the fact that they need to get special exceptions on a case basis and that the Mozilla project has reserved them the right to shoot down distributors in the future.)
Nice ad hominem attack Posted Oct 25, 2004 3:02 UTC (Mon) by hppnq (subscriber, #14462) [Link] Trademarks have nothing to do with Open Source; Linux(R) itself is trademarked by one L. Torvalds.
Nice ad hominem attack Posted Oct 25, 2004 4:42 UTC (Mon) by job (guest, #670) [Link] Trademarks have everything to do with open source. Much like copyrighthas everything to do with it. The GPL license builds on copyright law. But if your GPL'd code contains lots of trademarked words, then trademark laws are also in effect and can restrict distribution in ways the GPL was designed to protect. Much like Linux itself is a trademark of Linus, Linux itself is also a copyright of numerous people. The license under which you can use it is what open source is all about.
Nice ad hominem attack Posted Oct 25, 2004 6:42 UTC (Mon) by hppnq (subscriber, #14462) [Link] But if your GPL'd code contains lots of trademarked words, then trademark laws are also in effect and can restrict distribution in ways the GPL was designed to protect. If your code contains trademarks or copyrighted works that are not your own, normal restrictions apply. I'm pretty sure the GPL respects that, so what's the problem?
Nice ad hominem attack Posted Oct 25, 2004 15:23 UTC (Mon) by job (guest, #670) [Link] I was merely explaning how trademark law as well as copyright law canretrict distribution of software, as you said they have nothing to do with each other. My original comment was about that I think that a software should have all parts free (copyright as well as trademark license) to be considered free as a whole, and gave Firefox as a counterexample.
Nice ad hominem attack Posted Oct 25, 2004 15:50 UTC (Mon) by hppnq (subscriber, #14462) [Link] I am not quite sure what you mean. The GPL is actually quite restrictive, and only through its restrictions does it provide freedom. This is a way of saying that freedom is not as simple as getting rid of as much restrictions as we can.
Nice ad hominem attack Posted Oct 25, 2004 3:34 UTC (Mon) by petegn (guest, #847) [Link] Yeah yeah yeah ..
Tell you what if everyone that has crawled out of the wood work on the
It is just amazing how many people appear when some worm of a jurno has got his nutts in his hands .
Mozilla BTW is great and the fact that people MIGHT have to ask to include it in a distro places no problems oj it at all AFAICS
Pete .
Nice ad hominem attack Posted Oct 25, 2004 4:44 UTC (Mon) by job (guest, #670) [Link] Indeed. So where are you in all this? Your opinion might carry some moreweight if you were actually a packager for a major distro having to deal with all this stuff.
Nice ad hominem attack Posted Oct 25, 2004 6:14 UTC (Mon) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link] Having heard a lot about the FSF's philosophy, the grandparent is right.
All Mozilla's trademark stuff does is shoot THEMSELVES in the foot if they play nasty.
It does NOT restrict the USER's freedom at all. Don't forget - the FSF doesn't give a damn about DISTRIBUTORS.
Cheers,
Nice ad hominem attack Posted Nov 4, 2004 8:57 UTC (Thu) by job (guest, #670) [Link] On the contrary. It is the user's freedoms that are being restricted. Thedistributions can all ask and get special exceptions. Each and every user that wants to extend Mozilla in some way can't possibly ask the Mozilla organisation for special permission. That is the case today. Unless you want to redo the graphics and change the name, of couse, but that might be a bit more work than you originally had expected. It's your choice.
Nice ad hominem attack Posted Oct 24, 2004 13:29 UTC (Sun) by iabervon (subscriber, #722) [Link] It seems to me that he's specifically not counting the FSF as zealots. He and his employer both contribute to them, and he presumably wouldn't support people spewing rhetoric he felt was detrimental to his (and their) cause. Furthermore, the FSF's position is, as you point out, not what he says the zealots say. And he never actually accuses any particular people or groups of being zealots. He probably thought that the introduction about the FSF would be sufficient to imply that he didn't mean either them or anyone less idealistic.
So I think he actually means people he encounters in his daily life or in slashdot comments who tend to oppose anything the FSF says anything bad about (beyond the FSF's actual issue with it), quote RMS inappropriately, and forget that the point of Free Software includes software and not just licensing.
Nice ad hominem attack Posted Oct 25, 2004 15:57 UTC (Mon) by hppnq (subscriber, #14462) [Link] Give it another try, Bruce. You got it wrong in the first quote already.
Robin is having a bad mood today Posted Oct 24, 2004 8:14 UTC (Sun) by JohnBell (guest, #12625) [Link] Well... don't stop there. Fine, he's pissed off about the election, what's he pissed off about? Dirt, Bruce, we need dirt ;-).
How to be a Free Software zealot (NewsForge) Posted Oct 24, 2004 10:38 UTC (Sun) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] Respectfully:Robin you should try some anti-acid after a heavy meal... really!, it has worked with me!
|
|||||||||||