Of hypocrisy and the FSF (Libervis)
We did not install any of that non-free software, so it is ok for us to run Debian. But we cannot recommend its servers to the public. Other people might install the non-free software from the site."
Posted Dec 6, 2006 16:18 UTC (Wed)
by marduk (subscriber, #3831)
[Link] (3 responses)
Posted Dec 6, 2006 17:42 UTC (Wed)
by rfunk (subscriber, #4054)
[Link]
Posted Dec 7, 2006 15:13 UTC (Thu)
by coriordan (guest, #7544)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Dec 7, 2006 15:18 UTC (Thu)
by coriordan (guest, #7544)
[Link]
I think it was this talk: In the QandA session; so near the end somewhere. It's an interesting talk about Copyright vs. Community in the age of computer networks.
Posted Dec 6, 2006 16:20 UTC (Wed)
by flammon (guest, #807)
[Link] (25 responses)
Posted Dec 6, 2006 17:19 UTC (Wed)
by havoc (guest, #2261)
[Link] (24 responses)
Posted Dec 6, 2006 17:41 UTC (Wed)
by cantsin (guest, #4420)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Dec 6, 2006 22:13 UTC (Wed)
by drag (guest, #31333)
[Link]
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.
Posted Dec 6, 2006 18:03 UTC (Wed)
by drosser (guest, #29597)
[Link] (20 responses)
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.
Posted Dec 6, 2006 18:38 UTC (Wed)
by NAR (subscriber, #1313)
[Link] (19 responses)
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.
Posted Dec 6, 2006 18:49 UTC (Wed)
by jimmybgood (guest, #26142)
[Link] (2 responses)
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.
Posted Dec 6, 2006 20:25 UTC (Wed)
by hummassa (subscriber, #307)
[Link]
Posted Dec 7, 2006 11:55 UTC (Thu)
by NAR (subscriber, #1313)
[Link]
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.
Posted Dec 7, 2006 0:20 UTC (Thu)
by bronson (subscriber, #4806)
[Link] (5 responses)
Posted Dec 7, 2006 2:21 UTC (Thu)
by xoddam (subscriber, #2322)
[Link] (3 responses)
Posted Dec 7, 2006 9:42 UTC (Thu)
by bronson (subscriber, #4806)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Dec 7, 2006 23:15 UTC (Thu)
by anonymous1 (guest, #41963)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Jan 26, 2007 2:11 UTC (Fri)
by bronson (subscriber, #4806)
[Link]
Posted Dec 7, 2006 11:52 UTC (Thu)
by NAR (subscriber, #1313)
[Link]
Actually I'm not afraid of FSF - usually it's not the "preacher" who does the violence, but the audience.
Posted Dec 7, 2006 6:55 UTC (Thu)
by ekj (guest, #1524)
[Link] (7 responses)
Posted Dec 7, 2006 12:00 UTC (Thu)
by NAR (subscriber, #1313)
[Link] (6 responses)
Posted Dec 7, 2006 18:22 UTC (Thu)
by cyd (guest, #4153)
[Link] (5 responses)
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.
Posted Dec 7, 2006 23:16 UTC (Thu)
by sepreece (guest, #19270)
[Link] (4 responses)
Posted Dec 8, 2006 0:21 UTC (Fri)
by zlynx (guest, #2285)
[Link] (3 responses)
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).
Posted Dec 8, 2006 0:33 UTC (Fri)
by nix (subscriber, #2304)
[Link] (2 responses)
(i.e., I think your metaphor slipped a gear there somewhere :) )
Posted Dec 8, 2006 1:24 UTC (Fri)
by zlynx (guest, #2285)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Dec 8, 2006 12:19 UTC (Fri)
by nix (subscriber, #2304)
[Link]
Posted Dec 7, 2006 10:05 UTC (Thu)
by lysse (guest, #3190)
[Link] (1 responses)
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.
Posted Dec 7, 2006 22:35 UTC (Thu)
by peace (guest, #10016)
[Link]
Which just means that NAR needs to decide what type of world he wants to live in.
Posted Dec 6, 2006 19:13 UTC (Wed)
by jmmc (guest, #34939)
[Link]
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.
Posted Dec 6, 2006 16:53 UTC (Wed)
by NigelK (guest, #42083)
[Link] (21 responses)
In 2004, OSRM identified 27 Microsoft-held patents that are possibly infringed by Linux. The Director of Research at the time was Groklaw editor Pamela "PJ" Jones.
Q. Why hasn't that list of patents ever been published now that Jones has gone on-record saying that Linux doesn't infringe on Microsoft patents, if those 27 patents are not valid?
OSRM offers policies to potential customers in which they are protected from the costs of fighting a Linux IP-related lawsuit initiated by any company. Some Linux vendors such as RedHat also offer similar services to their customers.
Q. With Novell offering potential customers protection from patent-related lawsuits initiated by Microsoft, how can OSRM and RedHat be in the clear, but not Novell?
Richard Stallman and Eben Moglen have gone on the record saying that GPL3 will "fix" the MS/Novell deal, but refuse to comment on whether or not the GPL2 has been infringed. Close allies such as Jones have advocated that it's cheaper to strengthen the GPL3 than to enforce the GPL2.
Q. If the FSF baulk at the thought of enforcing the GPL2 due to the size of the company that is infringing it, doesn't this give the largest companies a green light to infringe *any* version of the GPL without fear of prosecution?
Q2. If the FSF refuse to enforce the GPL2, then why should anyone trust them when it comes to enforcing the GPL3?
Q3. If the FSF refuse to enforce the GPL, then what is the point of them, what is the point of transferring copyrights to them, and why is it acceptable for them to break the trust placed in them by the coders of their projects?
The FSF appear to be acting in their own interests these days, rather than their members.
Nigel Kneale.
Posted Dec 6, 2006 17:15 UTC (Wed)
by nix (subscriber, #2304)
[Link] (9 responses)
As far as I know, the FSF *doesn't* baulk at the thought of enforcing the GPL: it just starts out quietly, sending polite letters that tend to get the problem solved. (Some *very* large companies have backed down at this, so it's not a size-of-company thing at all.)
I find it really rather surprising that you don't already know this: both these facts have been widely publicised. Perhaps you're just a troll.
Posted Dec 6, 2006 18:17 UTC (Wed)
by NigelK (guest, #42083)
[Link] (7 responses)
If all or some of those patents are valid, then Pamela Jones especially has some explaining to do.
That OSRM data has become very important to our understanding of this issue. It's time to publish that data.
But, of course, no one could accuse Jones of hypocrisy. No wonder Jones is trying to use scare tactics to convince people it would be a bad idea (or even just a "very unwise" one) to publish that data.
So, let's sort this out once and for all, and publish the numbers of those 27 Microsoft patents.
As for the FSF - it's very easy to attribute all sorts of deeds to them when no one else can verify it. I'd like to see some proof of dealings with Novell and Microsoft rather than them publically acting as if the GPL2 never existed and that GPL3 would fix the world's problems. Until then, I think these questions should be asked, and asked frequently.
Nigel Kneale.
Posted Dec 6, 2006 18:33 UTC (Wed)
by pizza (subscriber, #46)
[Link] (4 responses)
The only way those patents will become "invalid" is if they are challenged; either in court or through the administrative reveiw process. Either way, it takes a fair amount of time and money.
> So, let's sort this out once and for all, and publish the numbers of those 27 Microsoft patents.
This means that *every* user and distributer of Linux will be potentially liable for treble damages immediately, whether or not the patent is "valid." It is this very reason that corporate lawyers everywhere tell their R&D departments to not do patent searches, as if they're later found to be infringing, it's enough for it to be considered "willful" and kick in said treble damages.
You are demonstrating a distinct lack of knowledge in how the Patent system really works; you are confusing "moral" and "legal".
You are also letting your dislike of Pamela Jones cloud your judgement.
Posted Dec 6, 2006 19:04 UTC (Wed)
by NigelK (guest, #42083)
[Link] (3 responses)
FLOSS is based on the many-eyeballs principle - let's point a few at the FSF and Groklaw. Having faith in them "doing the right thing" isn't going to be enough.
Nigel Kneale.
Posted Dec 6, 2006 19:27 UTC (Wed)
by khim (subscriber, #9252)
[Link]
And you are proposing to do this by exposing developers to treble damages and by spending a lot of money for useless quest ? Sorry - it's pretty bad approach IMNSHO... Yes, U.S. has totally screwed up laws as far as software patents are concerned - that does not mean you can ignore them in your quest to "closely examine" something... And if you don't understand these laws (and you showed that you don't understand them) then probably it's not a good idea for you to "closely examine" any body's legal work at all.
Posted Dec 6, 2006 20:38 UTC (Wed)
by jstAusr (guest, #27224)
[Link]
Posted Dec 6, 2006 21:21 UTC (Wed)
by nix (subscriber, #2304)
[Link]
As happened with that ex-project, the Linux kernel (everyone switched en
(sheesh.)
Posted Dec 6, 2006 20:39 UTC (Wed)
by Los__D (guest, #15263)
[Link]
Posted Dec 6, 2006 21:18 UTC (Wed)
by nix (subscriber, #2304)
[Link]
As for the FSF: yes, their current and previous staff *may* all be engaged
As for your anti-PJ stuff, I can't be bothered to engage in debate with
Posted Dec 7, 2006 10:56 UTC (Thu)
by ronaldcole (guest, #1462)
[Link]
It's probably time for some of the famous Groklaw community to research Microsoft's patents and deFUD this situation to the point where Ballmer starts throwing office *DESKS*!
Posted Dec 6, 2006 18:04 UTC (Wed)
by lonely_bear (subscriber, #2726)
[Link] (8 responses)
The FSF has no right to enforce GPL2 on Linux kernel. They don't own the copyright. Only official GNU projects, gcc, glibc, etc. which FSF is the copyright holder, that FSF could exercise its right.
Posted Dec 6, 2006 18:20 UTC (Wed)
by NigelK (guest, #42083)
[Link] (7 responses)
If the FSF doesn't act against Microsoft and Novell (redrafting the GPL3 doesn't count), then what good does giving them code copyrights do?
Nigel Kneale.
Posted Dec 6, 2006 19:19 UTC (Wed)
by khim (subscriber, #9252)
[Link]
The programmers of the GNU projects give the FSF their copyrights partially on the understanding that the FSF will step up to the plate when someone infringes the GPL when using that code. True - and so far results were pretty satisfactory. FSF enforced GPL a lot of time. They don't use public performances for this - it's their choice. It's often not a good idea to use this approach - instead of compliance and future friends you'll generate bunch of sore losers. If the FSF doesn't act against Microsoft and Novell (redrafting the GPL3 doesn't count), then what good does giving them code copyrights do? They are not blowing their months off - but how do you know they are not acting ? AFAIK right now they can not sue Novell, but may be they can sue Novell customers. It depends on exact details of Microsoft/Novell agreement. There are remote possibility that it's not really possible at all. Copyright (granted to FSF) is potent veapon but absolute it's not.
Posted Dec 6, 2006 20:32 UTC (Wed)
by HenrikH (subscriber, #31152)
[Link] (1 responses)
If on the other hand Microsoft starts to collect on their patents and Novell plays their "safe card", then there will be breakage of GPLv2, but not before.
Posted Dec 6, 2006 21:26 UTC (Wed)
by nix (subscriber, #2304)
[Link]
[1] Nothing is certain. RMS and Eben Moglen *could* go insane tomorrow and
Posted Dec 6, 2006 21:24 UTC (Wed)
by nix (subscriber, #2304)
[Link]
But note that when moving against something the size of MS, or something
I expect the FSF will do here what they always do with legal matters: act
Posted Dec 6, 2006 23:52 UTC (Wed)
by drag (guest, #31333)
[Link] (2 responses)
And Eben has looked closely at the details of the arrangement. I am willing to beleive them.
In other words Novell-Microsoft is NOT IN VIOLATION of the GPLv2 license.
There is nothing that FSF or GNU or anybody else can do about it, legal-wise. The goal is to close this paticular loophole with the GPLv3 license.
Posted Dec 7, 2006 20:47 UTC (Thu)
by Arker (guest, #14205)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Dec 8, 2006 0:08 UTC (Fri)
by k8to (guest, #15413)
[Link]
Here is the link.
Posted Dec 6, 2006 22:35 UTC (Wed)
by rev (guest, #15082)
[Link] (1 responses)
A2: Novell stroke a deal with Microsoft. Microsoft promises not to sue Movell customers. Microsft can retract agreement at will. OSRM, RedHat offer indemnification against legal attackers. Very different. Microsoft is no friend of OSS, in fact Microsoft is no friend of competitors. 3Com, Netscape, client side Java, Google. Halloween documents, funneling money into baseless SCO group FUDsuit. Suspicion is that Microsft is out to hurt OSS.
A3: Please provide evidence in support of your claim that "he FSF baulk at the thought of enforcing the GPL2 due to the size of the company that is infringing it". The situation appears to be that the agreement does not vioalte the letter of the GPLv2 but the therein explicitly stated intent of it. Hence the idea of explicitly making these kind of deals useles by wording to that affect in GPLv3.
A32. Please provide evidence in support of your presumptiom that the FSF refuses to enforce the GPL.
A33. Dito.
Thank you Nigel, for spotting this Grand Conspiracy for us. Thank you.
It strikes me that your post is lacking in the fact and logic department. The logical style of it is similar to that of 9/11 "Truth Scholars": not arguing a position by means of observed and known facts and logic but by casting doubt, asking rhetorical and loaded questions and other logical fallacies. Trying to hold a desparate postion makes it a neccassity.
Posted Jan 19, 2007 23:20 UTC (Fri)
by olecom (guest, #42886)
[Link]
Please do not mix this here. Or i will ask you about Gallileo's Law,
Posted Dec 6, 2006 19:05 UTC (Wed)
by jimmybgood (guest, #26142)
[Link] (1 responses)
It is not hypocrisy to make a recommendation that is not appropriate for ones own needs. For a desktop environment, I recommend to Linux neophytes KDE or gnome, whichever is default for the distribution. But I use fluxbox for a number of reasons including my experience with Linux. Were I to be an avid KDE afficianado, but recommended gnome because I have some investment whose value depends on the general adoption of gnome, that would make me a hypocrite.
Posted Dec 8, 2006 0:38 UTC (Fri)
by nix (subscriber, #2304)
[Link]
(I have snarfed that second sentence for my sig :) wonderfully put.)
Posted Dec 6, 2006 19:20 UTC (Wed)
by stevenj (guest, #421)
[Link] (1 responses)
This is the kind of article Slashdot posts in order to attract readers by making them see red, but I expect a higher standard of journalism from LWN.
Posted Dec 6, 2006 19:47 UTC (Wed)
by oska (guest, #25556)
[Link]
Posted Dec 7, 2006 4:27 UTC (Thu)
by vondo (guest, #256)
[Link] (1 responses)
If the FSF isn't willing to recommend Debian to people, they should drop it and use something they are willing to recommend. If they are willing to acknowledge that these third tier distributions they do recommend are not for production use, then they should elaborate on how to avoid using non-free software while still using Debian and state that this is a way to use a free system. (These instructions are all of three sentences long, right?)
From an organization as dogmatic as the FSF, this is what I expect.
Posted Dec 7, 2006 13:16 UTC (Thu)
by mbanck (subscriber, #9035)
[Link]
I heard that they started to also install Ubuntu on their servers a while ago, though I don't know to what extend or whether this is even true. Anyway, I assume they will gradually move over to gnewsense from now on. I don't think there is a need to drop everything and start all over right now, though.
Michael
Posted Dec 7, 2006 13:11 UTC (Thu)
by sp.at (guest, #36249)
[Link] (3 responses)
To supply you with the first paragraph:
"These are all GNU/Linux distributions we know of which consist entirely of free software, and whose main distribution sites distribute only free software. If a distribution does not appear in this list, there's a small chance that it qualifies and we do not know it; however, almost certainly it contains or distributes non-free software."
Now, for those who still do not understand: The FSF cannot recommend Debian GNU/Linux because of the very reason mentioned in the first sentence. Debian GNU/Linux does provide users with a non-free package repository and that's the problem, nothing more or less.
Using Debian GNU/Linux without the said repository (and without installing any other proprietary software) gives you a perfectly free system - something the FSF might be using, which actually is alright.
[0] http://www.gnu.org/links/links.html#FreeGNULinuxDistribut...
Posted Dec 8, 2006 0:18 UTC (Fri)
by k8to (guest, #15413)
[Link]
My question is, who are these users who would care enough to follow the Free Software Foundation's recommendations on Linux distributions and install these obscure free-software only distributions, but who would not care enough to simply not make use of the nonfree repository in Debian? I don't believe any such users exist.
I could go into speculation about the why of recommending against Debian wholesale, instead of just recommending against the use of non-free, but it will not be productive.
Posted Dec 12, 2006 1:41 UTC (Tue)
by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458)
[Link] (1 responses)
Strange how the FSF's list doesn't include Fedora... in its discussion lists the "why doesn't <some encumbered stuff> work out of the box" complaint is rather common, it is always answered by pointing out that Fedora's objective is to include exclusively open source software.
Posted Dec 12, 2006 13:54 UTC (Tue)
by jospoortvliet (guest, #33164)
[Link]
i asked why not supply a GPL mp3 codec? 'We're against patents, so we
well, i think that's not really amazing if it came from a FSF advocate or
Didn't at one time, before Linux became popular, the FSF did development on HP-UX boxes, among others?Of hypocrisy and the FSF (Libervis)
The original GNU development in the 80s was done on many different Of hypocrisy and the FSF (Libervis)
Unices, since there was no free OS available yet to develop on. It was
all bootstrapping toward the goal of creating an entirely free OS.
My understanding is that their primary platform has been Debian for a
very long time now.
Richard explained this decision in one of his talks. He said that temporary use of proprietary software for the purpose of helping others to escape from that software is justified just as joining a gang to infultrate it and have its members arrested is justified.Of hypocrisy and the FSF (Libervis)
Of hypocrisy and the FSF (Libervis)
Freedom of choice supersedes freedom of software in my book.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.Of hypocrisy and the FSF (Libervis)
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.
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.
Ya no shit.Of hypocrisy and the FSF (Libervis)
Firefox is obviously free software.
But the problem from RMS/FSF's point of view is that:
A. The binaries you download from Mozilla.org contain a tiny amount of propriatory software. (I don't know if they fixed that by now)
B. It encourages the use of propriatory software.
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.Of hypocrisy and the FSF (Libervis)
his position is that using non-free software is immoral.
Of hypocrisy and the FSF (Libervis)
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?Of hypocrisy and the FSF (Libervis)
> No one is going to burn you at the stake or stone you for your software it depends...
> choices.
The BSA might, if you are using irregularly copied software :-)
The FSF is not a violent organization.
Of hypocrisy and the FSF (Libervis)
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!Of hypocrisy and the FSF (Libervis)
Did Bruce *really* say that?+1 Funny!
</slashdot>
http://lwn.net/Articles/211852/Alas
Bruce took an analogy from Civil Rights to Free Software. He did *not* compare himself to anybody.no exaggeration please
It sounds to me like he thinks he's Martin Luther King. Maybe it was just a poor analogy.no exaggeration please
Thank you :-)
Of hypocrisy and the FSF (Libervis)
So, your problem is with anyone who characterizes *any* action as "immoral" ?
Of hypocrisy and the FSF (Libervis)
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)
Get real. Plenty of immoralities do not really hurt anyone: racial segregation, denying people the right to vote, censorship, etc. etc.Of hypocrisy and the FSF (Libervis)
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)
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.Of hypocrisy and the FSF (Libervis)
Hiding corruption via segregated toilet facilities? It is to boggle.Of hypocrisy and the FSF (Libervis)
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)
Sorry, I misread it. Medical care in toilets is equally bogglable, though. ;}Of hypocrisy and the FSF (Libervis)
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.Of hypocrisy and the FSF (Libervis)
I think RMS counts "being forced to use buggy printer drivers with no hope of fixing them" as eternal torture.Of hypocrisy and the FSF (Libervis)
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.Of hypocrisy and the FSF (Libervis)
Speaking of hypocrisy...Questions that need answering
Publishing that list of patents would be very unwise: should anyone stumble across that list, they'd be liable for triple damages for wilful infringement in the US should they use those algorithms again. (This is the same reason why it is generally a bad idea to look at software patents at all --- well, that and that their turgidity is liable to dissolve your brain).Questions that need answering
If those 27 patents are invalid, then all the criticism (especially levelled by Groklaw) directed towards Novell recently will have been validated. Also, there's no possible danger resulting from reading invalid patents. Of course, that would put Pamela Jones in a tight spot as it would show that OSRM was blowing smoke and spreading FUD whilst she was working for them.Questions that need answering
> If those 27 patents are invalid, then all the criticism (especially levelled by Groklaw) directed towards Novell recently will have been validated. Also, there's no possible danger resulting from reading invalid patents. Of course, that would put Pamela Jones in a tight spot as it would show that OSRM was blowing smoke and spreading FUD whilst she was working for them.Questions that need answering
With the FSF actively trying to reshape the FLOSS community in their own image (to the point of saying that "open software" is dead), and with Groklaw becoming an FSF mouthpiece (to the point of berating coders of high-profile projects because they don't share her beliefs - first it was the Linux kernel devs, now it's the OpenOffice devs [didn't you know Sun backs Novell's OOo efforts?], who knows who's going to be targeted next), I think the time has come to closely examine what the FSF and Groklaw's Jones have done and ask questions as to why they were done that way.Questions that need answering
Questions that need answering
The FSF hasn't changed its goals ever, as far as I know, it has always been about the four freedoms. Their approach to enforcement of copyright has proven to be sound. Software patents are a very ugly problem and patents in general have become a problem in other industries. The patent problem should be fixed at the administrative level, FSF doesn't have the authority to do that. However, the FSF is very vocal about the software patent problem. If you have a few million extra dollars you might be able to help out with one of the more clear cut and simple patent cases, if you have tens of millions you might be able to help out a little more but not much. Would you care to help?Questions that need answering
I like your phrasing. `Targeted', oh yeah, because as everyone knows as Questions that need answering
soon as PJ criticises a project, all its developers and users desert it
and it immediately collapses.
masse to DragonflyBSD, don't you know).
Read a bit about how the patent system work, or just go back to playing with Dan Lyons on his blog.Questions that need answering
I don't see why anyone has `explaining' to do if it should turn out that Questions that need answering
some or all free software is covered by patents. It is widely known that
*all* nontrivial software is covered by a myriad of overlapping patents,
and that it's essentially impossible to license them all (many demand
royalties: many demand *percentage of profits* royalties, which mean that
you can't license more than a few of them). Most of these patents are of
course covering extremely trivial stuff, or trivial combinations of
nontrivial stuff, but *nobody* has the money to pay to get them all
invalidated.
in a coordinated campaign of lies, shared with those companies that have
admitted to receiving such letters (or whose staff have admitted it).
Equally, the Moon landings may be a hoax, and jet aircraft may actually be
winched across the (solid) roof of the sky on cable-car stanchions. These
are all pretty much equally insane conspiracy theories to hold to, and
require comparable degrees of misreading of people's characters. (I mean,
RMS, lie about the FSF? It is to laugh.)
someone with a personal grudge.
Of course, this assumes that the patents are valid *AND* that Linux source code actually infringes them *AND* that such infringement is willful as evidenced by not immediately removing the infringing code upon it's identification.Questions that need answering
Please make clear that GPLed a program doesn't mean FSF will become the holder of the program.Questions that need answering
It was the GNU projects I was talking about. The programmers of the GNU projects give the FSF their copyrights partially on the understanding that the FSF will step up to the plate when someone infringes the GPL when using that code.Questions that need answering
Questions that need answering
>If the FSF doesn't act against Microsoft and NovellQuestions that need answering
There is nothing in the Microsoft/Novell deal that is prohibited by the GPLv2 so exactly how do you plan the FSF should act against them?
True. They'll (almost certainly[1]) hang legal fire until something Questions that need answering
definitely wrong has taken place.
sell the FSF to Darl McBride. It's just not terribly *likely*.
What makes you think they aren't planning to do exactly that?Questions that need answering
as core to the community as Novell, action taken in haste is action soon
regretted, and acting noisily is every bit as bad.
when unavoidable, and act quietly. (This is what everyone with good
lawyers does. People who make huge amounts of noise tend to do it because
they have no case: viz SCO.)
Eben Moglin and RMS both have stated that the Novell-Microsoft agreement is perfectly legal and is not a violation of the GPL license.Questions that need answering
I don't believe either of them have said that, actually. Link? Questions that need answering
You come off as pretty brusque. In general, on this site, I find that you can accept people at their word. It saves a lot of time and unpleasantness.Questions that need answering
http://www.fsfeurope.org/projects/gplv3/tokyo-rms-transcr...
A1: learn a bit about the patent system, Nigel. Knowing what patents might be treaded on increases ones liablility. That's why these patents where not disclosed. Enormous hypocrisy, isn't it.Questions that need answering
> It strikes me that your post is lacking in the fact and logic department.Questions that need answering
> The logical style of it is similar to that of 9/11 "Truth Scholars": not
> arguing a position by means of observed and known facts and logic but by
> casting doubt, asking rhetorical and loaded questions and other logical
> fallacies. Trying to hold a desparate postion makes it a neccassity.
where are TT's steel cores, and WTF happened to WTC7.
There were comparisons of Adolph with MSFT. Adolph created another Reich
and this country kills its people in the first turn.
If Richard Stallman is a gentleman, he should challenge this dylanknightrogers to a duel. He accused the FSF of being "something of a hypocrit", which shows that he neither understands hypocrisy nor can spell.Duel
No, please, no duel: many hackers have bad coordination and I don't want Duel
to take the chance of having RMS offed by some random luser.
This article is pure flamebait. It's an obscure screed by a random blogger that makes no particulary new observations, puts strawman thoughts into RMS's head (e.g. "he fails to recognize that I can get non-free software anywhere" ...right), and is an invitation for the kind of heat-no-light discussion above.
An article worthy of Slashdot
I agree, and it seems to have had the unfortunate effect also of attracting slashdot-like trolls.An article worthy of Slashdot
Hypocrisy is a strong word, but there is a tried and true concept in software development: eating your own dogfood. The public calls this "walking the talk."Of hypocrisy and the FSF (Libervis)
If the FSF isn't willing to recommend Debian to people, they should drop it and use something they are willing to recommend.Of hypocrisy and the FSF (Libervis)
Now, if someone had actually read at least the first paragraph of the GNU Project's 'Free GNU/Linux Distributions' page [0], this discussion wouldn't have started in the first place.Of hypocrisy and the FSF (Libervis)
I don't know about everyone else, but my personal objection to this is that it's patronizing. FSF states that it is okay for them to use Debian because they care to install free software and not the proprietary software. However, they cannot recommend that users do the same.Of hypocrisy and the FSF (Libervis)
Of hypocrisy and the FSF (Libervis)
indeed. i'm actually quite impressed by Red Hat's stand on Software Of hypocrisy and the FSF (Libervis)
Freedom. i spoke with a Red Hat employee sometime ago, and he was very
clear: not a bit non-free stuff in Red Hat, my friend.
don't want to include (possible) patent encumbered software. our
customers will complain to us. We can then point them to their governmet
to complain about software patents... If we would have delivered, they
wouldn't complain, nobody would know, and patents wouldn't be fought...'
a BSD volunteer. but this is from a company which wants to make money,
and i think it's very nice.