FSF and rms are unrelenting principled. There are not many other political organisations I trust more than the FSF. None, in fact. I commend you for speaking up. Thank you.
Tell HN: Dear 'open source' people (on defending rms)
21–30 of 40 posts
Re: Tell HN: Dear 'open source' people (on defending rms)
#22Your response to objection number 1 misses the point. The issue is what critical thinkers would recognize as an equivocation fallacy: It's one thing to classify certain software as 'free' according to a particular definition. It's another thing to attribute a moral judgment to something by using a certain term such as 'free'. Objection number 1 is about Stallman's use of the word 'free' in the second sense. Your resp…
Many vegetarians believe eating meat is evil. They tell me "you should not eat meat, it is evil".
I agree with them, and yet I eat meat, especially when my mother / girlfriend cooks it for me. Are vegetarians going to moral-judge me? Some of them might; Others would just see me as "strong" enough to resist meat.
With most politicians, the more you listen to them the more inconsistencies you will find. rms, however, is remarkably consistent and is unrelentingly principled.
I wish I were only one-tenth as principled as rms. Then I can reject meat and only use Free software. Alas, I'm not, so... rms can moral-judge me and I won't mind.
I don't think that prevents me from being a support of either causes, however.
Re: Tell HN: Dear 'open source' people (on defending rms)
#23Nice job! Most people pretend to 'get' rms and free software when it suits them.
Re: Tell HN: Dear 'open source' people (on defending rms)
#24>The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements (and modified versions in general) to the public, so that the whole community benefits.
...
>you dont have the right to change the meaning of term for the sake of argument.
So we should have the right to improve software, but not to improve the definition of words (or to use them the way that most people typically do)? Time to fight back against this tyrany and start the Free Language Foundation.
Re: Tell HN: Dear 'open source' people (on defending rms)
#25RMS is one of the primary reasons I stopped contributing to gcc.
RMS did huge amounts of damage with his "EMACS virgins" joke to women in computing, and has never apologised.
At the end of the day, I believe the days he is a help to the open source movement are over. He is now a major hinderance.
Re: Tell HN: Dear 'open source' people (on defending rms)
#26I've never advocated finding another leader of the FSF ... But I am afraid that it will become completely irrelevant if it's viewed as an extremist organization. I think the real danger is that it's membership will decide not to be associated with it and it's funding will dry up. RMS hasn't really said where his income comes from, but I'm assuming he's paid as the FSF's leader. Assuming that RMS' marketable skills re…
According to [1], his income is from speeches. The Form990 filed by the FSF [2] (If I understand it correctly) confirms he does not get any salary from the FSF.
1) http://blog.mypapit.net/2005/06/richard-stallman-admits-his-... 2) http://tfcny.fdncenter.org/990_pdf_archive/042/042888848/042...
Re: Tell HN: Dear 'open source' people (on defending rms)
#27When speaking publicly, RMS is often tactless, offensive, and socially inept. The "emacs virgins" debacle wasn't an issue of "political correctness," nor is the dust up over his comments on Steve Jobs' passing. Granted, there may be a utilitarian point regarding Jobs' work to advance closed platforms, and his death meaning he won't be able to do so any longer, but to spit on his grave? Absolutely uncalled for. We sho…
Oh get over yourself.
My condolences if you knew Mr Jobs personally, but really, spat on his grave? Stallman did nothing of the sort.
What Stallman did was address the practical change for free software that Steve Jobs removal from leadership at Apple would make. That's it. The manner of removal RMS notes as undeserved.
Re: Tell HN: Dear 'open source' people (on defending rms)
#28Your response to objection number 1 misses the point. The issue is what critical thinkers would recognize as an equivocation fallacy: It's one thing to classify certain software as 'free' according to a particular definition. It's another thing to attribute a moral judgment to something by using a certain term such as 'free'. Objection number 1 is about Stallman's use of the word 'free' in the second sense. Your resp…
Many vegetarians believe eating meat is evil. They tell me "you should not eat meat, it is evil". I agree with them, and yet I eat meat, especially when my mother / girlfriend cooks it for me. Are vegetarians going to moral-judge me? Some of them might; Others would just see me as "strong" enough to resist meat. With most politicians, the more you listen to them the more inconsistencies you will find. rms, however, i…
I'm not quite sure what you're trying to tell me.
I didn't say that Stallman has no principles, or that he is inconsistent. For me, there's just one main question: Is his conclusion -- that all software should be free software -- rational?
To be rational, a conclusion should follow logically from true premises and at least one fundamental moral principle. It's been a while since I studied Stallman's writings, but back then, I fail to find any sound argument. It was mostly just logical fallacies. Since I doubt, he changed his arguments, this probably still holds true. If so, this is a sufficient reason for me to not support his cause.
Re: Tell HN: Dear 'open source' people (on defending rms)
#29I dunno, I am one of the largest supporters of FOSS outside of the likes of RMS and Linus and ESR and co.
However, I'm going to repeat something I've said before (and I think before on HN as well): I did not celebrate the death of Saddam and Osama, and I'm sure as hell not going to start with Steve Jobs.
I did not agree with every one of his business decisions, but I think he was an interesting guy. He did things no one else did, and he made a few enemies doing it.
I know a lot of people will shoot me down for saying this, but a large part of RMS's beef with Apple is Apple used BSD licensed software according to the BSD license. They didn't have to give back to the community, the license doesn't require it... but they did.
RMS largely hates BSD licenses because they don't require further code to be Free, and you know what? No one cares. If a company thinks they can wade into a market that already has a major competitor (the code they're "ripping off"), then let them.
So yeah, RMS is the destroyer of public relations for FSF, and hes a bastard beyond measure. But when RMS dies (in the next 20-30 years), I'm not going to celebrate his death, I'm going to remember what he did that was right and try to learn from that.
The golden rule of society is "don't be a douchebag", and it would be great if everyone followed that rule even if they follow none of the rest.
Re: Tell HN: Dear 'open source' people (on defending rms)
#30I don't understand the purpose of this post. You're not asking anything, you're defending RMS with some incredibly shallow logic and then presumptuously chastising us for not caring about free software ideals, mixed with some ad hominem attacks.
Honestly, you are missing, or dismissing, important points - e.g. normal humans need software and devices and they can actually use - and the ad hominem arguments in the latter half of your post are completely out of line here on HN. If you want to have a discussion we can have a discussion but you have failed to start a good one on the right foot.