Recent Features
| |||||||||||||
Of hypocrisy and the FSF (Libervis)Of hypocrisy and the FSF (Libervis)Posted Dec 6, 2006 17:19 UTC (Wed) by havoc (guest, #2261)In reply to: Of hypocrisy and the FSF (Libervis) by flammon Parent article: Of hypocrisy and the FSF (Libervis)
Richard Stallman believes in "freedom," which means you're free to be "free" HIS WAY, and only his way. Richard Stallman is, for me, a shining example of the worst kind of legalism.
(Log in to post comments)
Of hypocrisy and the FSF (Libervis) Posted Dec 6, 2006 17:41 UTC (Wed) by cantsin (guest, #4420) [Link] Richard Stallman believes in "freedom," which means you're free to be "free" HIS WAY, and only his way. Richard Stallman is, for me, a shining example of the worst kind of legalism.If that were true, RMS and the FSF wouldn't endorse the free BSDs and wouldn't have given Theo de Raadt the Free Software Award.
Of hypocrisy and the FSF (Libervis) Posted Dec 6, 2006 22:13 UTC (Wed) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link] Ya no shit.
Sure the guy isn't very good at getting points across sometimes, but RMS isn't saying what the OP thinks he is saying.
It's not evil to use Free software. There is no goal to make all software Free in the FSF's defination or anything like that.
Take firefox for instance:
So it's perfectly fine and ok to distribute firefox..
So what happens is that you go to a flash site, for instance, Firefox will prompt you to download propriatory software to deal with it. It'll tell you should use the propriatory software, it will download it and it will install it on your machine.
So you have free software actively encouraging users and aiding them to take their freedom away.
Of course for us it's easy to say 'no thank you', but a naive person will probably misunderstand this and still think they are running Free software, if they care about that sort of thing.
So it's the same thing with Debian and non-free. You have a free software operating system that actively encourages it's users to install propriatory software and aids in it.
At least it's not as bad as Ubuntu, which claims that it's free software, but then installs many megs of propriatory software by default.
That is why they don't recommend stuff like that to users.
-------
Look at this way.
Say you have a webcam your trying to install on Linux. It requires that you have to be knowledgable about patching kernels and you have to modify the c code a bit to get it to compile properly and then you have to write some system scripts to setup the special device file with correct permissions which gets launched by Udebv.
Now it works ok and all that, but are you going to recommend that peice of hardware to normal people?
NO, of course not. There are other devices that would work much easier.
Is it then hypocritical for you to continue to use that webcam even though you can't feel that you can recommend it to others?
So we both know of course not, that would be retarded.
So it's the same thing with FSF and RMS. Their goal is to encourage the use and development of Free software. So they can't realy recommend any OS that promotes the use and development of propriatory software.
It's unethical from their viewpoint to promote such things. It's not unethical to use it, it's still Free software.. But you have to be carefull and knowlegable about the licenses and such when your using it.
Also you notice that FSF and such have changed licenses and worked with people and have done things that made it easier for people to use Free software for specific situations even if it made it easier to use propriatory software.
This is a hell of a lot better then some orginizations like Apache which are much much more inflexible with it's licensing requirements.
I am not saying RMS is god or that he is perfect or anything. I am just saying that if your going to accuse him or FSF of being hypocrites then you need to find something that they are actually guitly of instead of just making up bullshit that sounds good if you don't think about it to hard.
Of hypocrisy and the FSF (Libervis) Posted Dec 6, 2006 18:03 UTC (Wed) by drosser (guest, #29597) [Link] The world is full of uncompromising characters, but few of them have been as useful to humanity as RMS. I'm not asking you to like RMS, just refrain from the usual "what an uncompromising, unpleasant fellow" rhetoric that distracts from the conversation.
Back to the conversation. I don't think RMS has ever told any body "You CANNOT use non-free software." Rather, his position is that using non-free software is immoral. As such, when you have no free software to choose from, make the least immoral choice.
Of hypocrisy and the FSF (Libervis) Posted Dec 6, 2006 18:38 UTC (Wed) by NAR (subscriber, #1313) [Link] his position is that using non-free software is immoral.My problem is that not that long ago immoral people were burnt at stakes or not that far away immoral people are stoned to death - and I don't want to end up like that.
Of hypocrisy and the FSF (Libervis) Posted Dec 6, 2006 18:49 UTC (Wed) by jimmybgood (guest, #26142) [Link] What are you trying to say here? That we should never accuse anyone of immorality, because accusations may lead to violence? Or that you are afraid that Richard Stallman and the FSF inquisition may break down your door and stone you to death for using non-free software?
Get real. The FSF is not a violent organization. No one is going to burn you at the stake or stone you for your software choices.
it depends... Posted Dec 6, 2006 20:25 UTC (Wed) by hummassa (subscriber, #307) [Link] > No one is going to burn you at the stake or stone you for your software> choices. The BSA might, if you are using irregularly copied software :-)
Of hypocrisy and the FSF (Libervis) Posted Dec 7, 2006 11:55 UTC (Thu) by NAR (subscriber, #1313) [Link] The FSF is not a violent organization.Yes, the Catholic church started that way too. Then a couple of hundred years later it started crusades. Being on the "moral highground" can do unpleasant things to people/origanizations.
Of hypocrisy and the FSF (Libervis) Posted Dec 7, 2006 0:20 UTC (Thu) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link] Well done NAR! I hereby nominate you for the Bruce Perens Award for Outrageous Hyperbole. When Bruce equated himself to the Civil Rights movement I was impressed. Now that you're afraid of the FSF burning you at the stake or stoning you to death for using proprietary software, I must say, you've bested even him. And that's not easy!
+1 Funny! Posted Dec 7, 2006 2:21 UTC (Thu) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link] Did Bruce *really* say that?</slashdot>
Alas Posted Dec 7, 2006 9:42 UTC (Thu) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link] http://lwn.net/Articles/211852/
no exaggeration please Posted Dec 7, 2006 23:15 UTC (Thu) by anonymous1 (guest, #41963) [Link] Bruce took an analogy from Civil Rights to Free Software. He did *not* compare himself to anybody.
no exaggeration please Posted Jan 26, 2007 2:11 UTC (Fri) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link] It sounds to me like he thinks he's Martin Luther King. Maybe it was just a poor analogy.
Of hypocrisy and the FSF (Libervis) Posted Dec 7, 2006 11:52 UTC (Thu) by NAR (subscriber, #1313) [Link] Thank you :-)Actually I'm not afraid of FSF - usually it's not the "preacher" who does the violence, but the audience.
Of hypocrisy and the FSF (Libervis) Posted Dec 7, 2006 6:55 UTC (Thu) by ekj (guest, #1524) [Link] So, your problem is with anyone who characterizes *any* action as "immoral" ?
Of hypocrisy and the FSF (Libervis) Posted Dec 7, 2006 12:00 UTC (Thu) by NAR (subscriber, #1313) [Link] Let me put this way: it makes me rather suspicious of one's intent, if he calls such acts "immoral" that do not hurt anyone.
Of hypocrisy and the FSF (Libervis) Posted Dec 7, 2006 18:22 UTC (Thu) by cyd (guest, #4153) [Link] Get real. Plenty of immoralities do not really hurt anyone: racial segregation, denying people the right to vote, censorship, etc. etc.
Insinuating, as you do, that any argument based on morals and ethics is morally suspect is, itself, a moral position. Unlike the FSF, you haven't backed YOUR moral position with anything resembling a substantial argument.
Of hypocrisy and the FSF (Libervis) Posted Dec 7, 2006 23:16 UTC (Thu) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270) [Link] Could you explain in what sense you believe "racial segregation, denying people the right to vote, censorship, etc. etc." don't hurt anyone?
Of hypocrisy and the FSF (Libervis) Posted Dec 8, 2006 0:21 UTC (Fri) by zlynx (subscriber, #2285) [Link] Cyd's argument makes sense to me. Say that I am a government. I deny you the right to vote. You are not physically harmed. I just don't listen to you when I make decisions.
More examples: children are denied the right to vote but are still protected and cared for. Male and female toilet facilities are usually segregated; this does not harm males or females.
What you may be wondering about is the harm that segregation, no right to vote, and censorship make possible. Segregated medical care PLUS low quality medicine and doctors is harm. No right to vote PLUS laws allowing your legal murder is harm. Censorship PLUS hiding corruption and abuses of power is like no right to vote (since we cannot vote meaningfully without accurate information).
Of hypocrisy and the FSF (Libervis) Posted Dec 8, 2006 0:33 UTC (Fri) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] Hiding corruption via segregated toilet facilities? It is to boggle.
(i.e., I think your metaphor slipped a gear there somewhere :) )
Of hypocrisy and the FSF (Libervis) Posted Dec 8, 2006 1:24 UTC (Fri) by zlynx (subscriber, #2285) [Link] I don't see how you read my comment in order to link toilet facilities and corruption. It must be a joke, but I don't get it.
Of hypocrisy and the FSF (Libervis) Posted Dec 8, 2006 12:19 UTC (Fri) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] Sorry, I misread it. Medical care in toilets is equally bogglable, though. ;}
Of hypocrisy and the FSF (Libervis) Posted Dec 7, 2006 10:05 UTC (Thu) by lysse (guest, #3190) [Link] People who love freedom don't do that kind of thing - and not just because they have been the usual targets of it over the years.
When Stallman calls something "immoral", chances are he means something rather different from your local Catholic priest. Something that doesn't carry connotations of eternal torture. Sadly, I think people tend to load their own baggage onto RMS's choice of terms, forgetting that hackers tend to use English more precisely than most people do, and to whine about him on that basis. The above is a prime example.
Of hypocrisy and the FSF (Libervis) Posted Dec 7, 2006 22:35 UTC (Thu) by peace (guest, #10016) [Link] I think RMS counts "being forced to use buggy printer drivers with no hope of fixing them" as eternal torture.
Which just means that NAR needs to decide what type of world he wants to live in.
Of hypocrisy and the FSF (Libervis) Posted Dec 6, 2006 19:13 UTC (Wed) by jmmc (guest, #34939) [Link] If you have issues with the FSF, be much clearer. How you got off into some knee-jerk indictment of RMS, like many do, boggles my mind.
You did mean to say _software_ freedom, right ? Because you used the term freedom generally - in fact, you never mention the word software in your reply. You may have thought you were in the context of the software world, (this being LWN and all) but your reply, to me, exhibits that 'fear and loathing' extension which a lot a people ascribe to RMS for reasons unknown. I mean, imho, Richard seems like the 'least nuanced' person I've heard in the software world. To me, RMS has always just stated his case, and left it for us to decide. This idea that he has some sort of, 'uber-sinister' plan via the FSF to bring us what ? - more freedom ? is just strange to me.
Richard, as I hear him, (and I'm neither an apologist nor general defender, just a, imho, decent listener) continually speaks about 'Free Software' - in fact, although he may rarely and briefly digress in to issues of wider freedoms in the context of the whole of life, I rarely hear him use the terms 'Free' and 'Software' apart from each other. Richard, to his credit, always keeps the discussion about Free Software, as supported by existing copyright law. Once you've heard him go through the four freedoms (again, for software !), that pretty much sums it up. I never get the feeling RMS or the FSF is trying _force_ some sort of 'RMS/FSF Way' on me or on the software I choose to write or use.
|
|||||||||||||