LWN: Comments on "Of hypocrisy and the FSF (Libervis)"

no exaggeration please

bronson — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 02:11:07 +0000

It sounds to me like he thinks he's Martin Luther King. Maybe it was just a poor analogy.

Questions that need answering

olecom — Fri, 19 Jan 2007 23:20:36 +0000

> 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.

Please do not mix this here. Or i will ask you about Gallileo's Law,
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.

Of hypocrisy and the FSF (Libervis)

jospoortvliet — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 13:54:38 +0000

indeed. i'm actually quite impressed by Red Hat's stand on Software
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.

i asked why not supply a GPL mp3 codec? 'We're against patents, so we
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...'

well, i think that's not really amazing if it came from a FSF advocate or
a BSD volunteer. but this is from a company which wants to make money,
and i think it's very nice.

Of hypocrisy and the FSF (Libervis)

vonbrand — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 01:41:25 +0000

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.

Of hypocrisy and the FSF (Libervis)

nix — Fri, 08 Dec 2006 12:19:08 +0000

Sorry, I misread it. Medical care in toilets is equally bogglable, though. ;}

Of hypocrisy and the FSF (Libervis)

zlynx — Fri, 08 Dec 2006 01:24:22 +0000

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.

Duel

nix — Fri, 08 Dec 2006 00:38:08 +0000

No, please, no duel: many hackers have bad coordination and I don't want
to take the chance of having RMS offed by some random luser.

(I have snarfed that second sentence for my sig :) wonderfully put.)

Of hypocrisy and the FSF (Libervis)

nix — Fri, 08 Dec 2006 00:33:43 +0000

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)

zlynx — Fri, 08 Dec 2006 00:21:26 +0000

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)

k8to — Fri, 08 Dec 2006 00:18:26 +0000

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.

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.

Questions that need answering

k8to — Fri, 08 Dec 2006 00:08:54 +0000

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.

Here is the link.
http://www.fsfeurope.org/projects/gplv3/tokyo-rms-transcr...

Of hypocrisy and the FSF (Libervis)

sepreece — Thu, 07 Dec 2006 23:16:29 +0000

Could you explain in what sense you believe "racial segregation, denying people the right to vote, censorship, etc. etc." don't hurt anyone?

no exaggeration please

anonymous1 — Thu, 07 Dec 2006 23:15:58 +0000

Bruce took an analogy from Civil Rights to Free Software. He did *not* compare himself to anybody.

Of hypocrisy and the FSF (Libervis)

peace — Thu, 07 Dec 2006 22:35:14 +0000

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.

Questions that need answering

Arker — Thu, 07 Dec 2006 20:47:07 +0000

I don't believe either of them have said that, actually. Link?

Of hypocrisy and the FSF (Libervis)

cyd — Thu, 07 Dec 2006 18:22:03 +0000

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)

coriordan — Thu, 07 Dec 2006 15:18:13 +0000

I think it was this talk:

RichardStallman.mp4

In the QandA session; so near the end somewhere. It's an interesting talk about Copyright vs. Community in the age of computer networks.

Of hypocrisy and the FSF (Libervis)

coriordan — Thu, 07 Dec 2006 15:13:02 +0000

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)

mbanck — Thu, 07 Dec 2006 13:16:45 +0000

If the FSF isn't willing to recommend Debian to people, they should drop it and use something they are willing to recommend.

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

Of hypocrisy and the FSF (Libervis)

sp.at — Thu, 07 Dec 2006 13:11:33 +0000

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.

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...

Of hypocrisy and the FSF (Libervis)

NAR — Thu, 07 Dec 2006 12:00:07 +0000

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.

Bye,NAR

Of hypocrisy and the FSF (Libervis)

NAR — Thu, 07 Dec 2006 11:55:44 +0000

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.

Bye,NAR

Of hypocrisy and the FSF (Libervis)

NAR — Thu, 07 Dec 2006 11:52:59 +0000

Thank you :-)

Actually I'm not afraid of FSF - usually it's not the "preacher" who does the violence, but the audience.

Bye,NAR

Questions that need answering

ronaldcole — Thu, 07 Dec 2006 10:56:57 +0000

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.

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*!

Of hypocrisy and the FSF (Libervis)

lysse — Thu, 07 Dec 2006 10:05:18 +0000

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.

Alas

bronson — Thu, 07 Dec 2006 09:42:14 +0000

http://lwn.net/Articles/211852/

Of hypocrisy and the FSF (Libervis)

ekj — Thu, 07 Dec 2006 06:55:28 +0000

So, your problem is with anyone who characterizes *any* action as "immoral" ?

Of hypocrisy and the FSF (Libervis)

vondo — Thu, 07 Dec 2006 04:27:30 +0000

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."

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.

+1 Funny!

xoddam — Thu, 07 Dec 2006 02:21:32 +0000

Did Bruce *really* say that?
</slashdot>

Of hypocrisy and the FSF (Libervis)

bronson — Thu, 07 Dec 2006 00:20:10 +0000

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!

Questions that need answering

drag — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 23:52:03 +0000

Eben Moglin and RMS both have stated that the Novell-Microsoft agreement is perfectly legal and is not a violation of the GPL license.

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.

Questions that need answering

rev — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 22:35:24 +0000

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.

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.

Of hypocrisy and the FSF (Libervis)

drag — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 22:13:16 +0000

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:
Firefox is obviously free software.

So it's perfectly fine and ok to distribute firefox..
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.

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.

Questions that need answering

nix — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 21:26:21 +0000

True. They'll (almost certainly[1]) hang legal fire until something
definitely wrong has taken place.

[1] Nothing is certain. RMS and Eben Moglen *could* go insane tomorrow and
sell the FSF to Darl McBride. It's just not terribly *likely*.

Questions that need answering

nix — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 21:24:24 +0000

What makes you think they aren't planning to do exactly that?

But note that when moving against something the size of MS, or something
as core to the community as Novell, action taken in haste is action soon
regretted, and acting noisily is every bit as bad.

I expect the FSF will do here what they always do with legal matters: act
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.)

Questions that need answering

nix — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 21:21:11 +0000

I like your phrasing. `Targeted', oh yeah, because as everyone knows as
soon as PJ criticises a project, all its developers and users desert it
and it immediately collapses.

As happened with that ex-project, the Linux kernel (everyone switched en
masse to DragonflyBSD, don't you know).

(sheesh.)

Questions that need answering

nix — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 21:18:32 +0000

I don't see why anyone has `explaining' to do if it should turn out that
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.

As for the FSF: yes, their current and previous staff *may* all be engaged
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.)

As for your anti-PJ stuff, I can't be bothered to engage in debate with
someone with a personal grudge.

Questions that need answering

Los__D — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 20:39:45 +0000

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

jstAusr — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 20:38:25 +0000

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

HenrikH — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 20:32:38 +0000

>If the FSF doesn't act against Microsoft and Novell
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?

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.