| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Did RMS "start" this discussion?Did RMS "start" this discussion?Posted Dec 19, 2007 20:48 UTC (Wed) by stevenj (guest, #421)In reply to: Insufficiently free? by drlark Parent article: Insufficiently free?
LWN: In particular, Richard Stallman started the discussion ... You: RMS likes to do these drive-by flames, if for no other purpose, then to get his name out and make it look he's still relevant. Actually, it seems debatable whether RMS "started" this discussion (or did a "drive-by flame" as you put it). Richard posted on the OpenBSD mailing list in response to a thread started by someone else discussing his views. If someone is discussing your views, you can hardly be blamed for responding. The original post, in turn, was in response to an interview of RMS on BSDtalk. If you invite RMS for an interview on a BSD talk show, and ask his opinion on the BSD distros, you can hardly blame him for giving it—the same position he has applied to years to free-open/source operating system distros.
(Log in to post comments)
Did RMS "start" this discussion? Posted Dec 19, 2007 21:45 UTC (Wed) by drlark (guest, #45225) [Link] I stand corrected. I should have noted that this was taken from mid-thread. Also duly noted is that RMS was responding to someone's opinions of his views. For that, I was wrong. However, I still do consider this "drive-by"-ish in respect to how these flame wars start and fester. IMHO, RMS was splitting hairs for mentioning his dislike of the ports system for installing non-free software. If you are to follow his rationale that use the ports tree makes it "easy" to use non-free software, then you pretty much have to lump anything that could be used, i.e. ftp, lynx, etc. BTW, the ports-tree is, like the rest of OBSD, distributed freely. Taking issue with free software that links or otherwise manipulates non-free software is just silly. Likewise, Theo is almost good for turning an intellectual argument into a religious war (ditto, RMS). From what I have seen in Theo's writing is that he just has to interject himself in situations where it would be better to just listen. I do stand by my original assertion that flame wars like this add no value. Upset the community. And are generally non-productive. I have used OpenBSD. I like its security approach. I like its stability. I don't like the rhetoric that goes with it. I like Linux, or GNU/Linux, or whatever. I mae a living off of it. My company depends upon it. I don't like the rhetoric that goes with it. -dan
Did RMS "start" this discussion? Posted Dec 20, 2007 1:58 UTC (Thu) by stevenj (guest, #421) [Link] If you are to follow his rationale that use the ports tree makes it "easy" to use non-free software, then you pretty much have to lump anything that could be used, i.e. ftp, lynx, etc. BTW, the ports-tree is, like the rest of OBSD, distributed freely. RMS responded to precisely this argument in more than one place, and you are misrepresenting his rationale. He makes a clear distinction between a port that gives a specific "recipe" of instructions for how to install a specific piece of non-free software—which, in his point of view, is effectively a recommendation of a specific piece of non-free software and hence unethical—and generic tools like "make" and "ftp" which could be used for a variety of purposes, both for free and non-free software, and hence are ethically neutral. You may or may not agree with his basic philosophical premise that using, recommending, encouraging, or giving recipes for running specific non-free software is unethical—reasonable people can have different value judgements on this question. Attacking RMS on the grounds of logical inconsistency, on the other hand, is harder; he has a well-earned reputation for being consistent to a fault. (All too many "logical" criticisms of him seem to rely on exaggerations or misunderstandings of his point of view.) On this specific issue, this post by RMS is pertinent: Any general-purpose system can run non-free software, but that's not the issue. The issue is whether a distribution refers people to the non-free software or not.
Did RMS "start" this discussion? Posted Dec 20, 2007 2:14 UTC (Thu) by stevenj (guest, #421) [Link] Who could care less about the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin That's not really a fair comparison. Most of RMS's arguments have clear practical consequences. Most notably, his rejection of non-free software as unethical led directly to GNU. Similarly, the question here of whether a distro (whether BSD or GNU/Linux) should include packages to build specific pieces of non-free software also has clear practical consequences, whichever conclusion you agree with. I do stand by my original assertion that flame wars like this add no value. Upset the community. And are generally non-productive. You could argue that RMS is unlikely to persuade the OpenBSD developers, and he would probably be the first to agree with you—RMS always says that he never expects to succeed in anything he tries, but he does it anyway. However, if people are going to discuss his views on a mailing list in a thread started by someone else, you can hardly blame him for trying to make sure his views are accurately described (whether or not they are agreed with). After all, mailing list archives last virtually forever and are read by many people other than the OpenBSD developers.
|
|
||||||||||||