FSF leaders [LWN.net]

FSF leaders

Posted Sep 7, 2005 14:05 UTC (Wed) by fizteh89 (guest, #32316)
In reply to: The GPL Version 3 Development and Publicity Project by greve
Parent article: The GPL Version 3 Development and Publicity Project

I am starting to have strong concerns about mental abilities of the
so-called open-source "luminaries" and FSF leaders:

Were fundamentally opposed to DRM. We think its a dead end for society, Greve said, adding all software should be free to use and that artists could be paid for their films and music by a general taxation on Internet connections.

Web access could come with a cultural flat fee, he said.

And this is the guy representing FSF in Europe?

Forgive me for strong words, but this is just f****** STUPID !!!

It is just amazing how one crazy guy at MIT can start a whole political
movement which makes us all deal with such idiots on everyday basis.

Software development is just a profession, a way to make a living,
it should be free of any political or religious-like crap (GNU Manifesto)

Leave me alone to develop software for a living, f****** FSF idiots !

(Log in to post comments)

FSF leaders

Posted Sep 7, 2005 15:26 UTC (Wed) by greve (subscriber, #8385) [Link]

Quoting from my statement made yesterday on this:

Unfortunately, when adding a fix for the worst misinformation about patents, the journalist also added more quotes and material to the issue on DRM and "internet taxation".

To make clear you know where this comes from and where I stand, let me point out that I did not advocate internet taxation when speaking with the journalist, nor do I think it is a good idea: Indeed I had long fights with people who suggested something like this during the United Nations World Summit on the Information Society.

The journalist asked me whether I knew of any alternatives to DRM, to which I said that many people advocate all sorts of different concepts, including cultural flatrates or production on demand models. When asked whether a cultural flatrate could be considered a kind of tax, I said this might be one way of looking at it.

I did not endorse any of these models, only said that alternatives to DRM are thinkable and that we should consider them, because I do consider DRM a very bad idea.

Like I wrote: The Reuters article is best ignored. It does noone any good to react to things that haven't been said.