| |||||||||||||
Of hypocrisy and the FSF (Libervis)Of hypocrisy and the FSF (Libervis)Posted Dec 6, 2006 18:03 UTC (Wed) by drosser (guest, #29597)In reply to: Of hypocrisy and the FSF (Libervis) by havoc Parent article: Of hypocrisy and the FSF (Libervis)
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.
(Log in to post comments)
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.
|
|||||||||||||