This whole "Stallman doesn't carry a phone" thing is BS. I spent a couple days with him in Hawaii. He most definitely has a cell phone.
And don't talk about his laptop, how nowadays you can still use that kind of laptop?!
Richard Stallman Was Right All Along
231–236 of 236 posts
Re: Richard Stallman Was Right All Along
#232Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'll tell one thing which won't solve it: religious zealotry and advocations for everyone in the world to commit to FSF purity. Open software advocates should treat closed and controlled systems in the same fashion that techies implore content creators to treat piracy: an unstoppable force of nature that must be accepted and competed with, rather than feared and demonized. Also underlying both issues: the need for im…
I used to think this too, until I realized something I didn't thoroughly understand until I read the OP. The reason Stallman wants a "pure" system with no closed source code is because if there's even one proprietary bit of executable code, you can't guarantee your system isn't spying (or capable of spying) on you. Or tracking you or restricting how you use your data. Seen through the argument I just made, when you s…
I'd like to remark that your argument is not valid: To know that your system won't spy on you, all you need is open code (transparency). You don't need it to be free.
Theoretically, you can have a completely unfree system that is completely open at the same time.
Re: Richard Stallman Was Right All Along
#233Of course he is right when he writes about fundamental issues. He's very smart and knows the implications of laws and licenses.
However, he allows no room for dissent, no transition path, no concessions for the real world. His followers are the same.
For this reason, I will never use the GPL for any of my projects (I prefer wxWidgets and MIT licenses).
Re: Richard Stallman Was Right All Along
#234Earlier quoted context omitted.
I used to think this too, until I realized something I didn't thoroughly understand until I read the OP. The reason Stallman wants a "pure" system with no closed source code is because if there's even one proprietary bit of executable code, you can't guarantee your system isn't spying (or capable of spying) on you. Or tracking you or restricting how you use your data. Seen through the argument I just made, when you s…
I'd like to remark that your argument is not valid: To know that your system won't spy on you, all you need is open code (transparency). You don't need it to be free. Theoretically, you can have a completely unfree system that is completely open at the same time.
I don't see how that invalidates my argument. I don't mention paid vs unpaid at all, just closed and open.
Re: Richard Stallman Was Right All Along
#235Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd like to remark that your argument is not valid: To know that your system won't spy on you, all you need is open code (transparency). You don't need it to be free. Theoretically, you can have a completely unfree system that is completely open at the same time.
I don't see how that invalidates my argument. I don't mention paid vs unpaid at all, just closed and open.
I didn't mention paid vs. unpaid, either. I was speaking about 'free' as in 'free software' vs. proprietary. My point was that you can have a proprietary system that is open.
For reference, this was the argument I was replying to:
> … if there's even one proprietary bit of executable code, you can't guarantee your system isn't spying (or capable of spying) on you.
Re: Richard Stallman Was Right All Along
#236Earlier quoted context omitted.
You mentioned BSD and I'm wondering what's wrong with BSD? A lot of FOSS people are all about hating anything that isn't GPL but let's not forget that these licenses serve a purpose. GPL has its place but I personally distribute things I make under BSD all the time. I don't mind and in fact encourage people to take my source, close it up and make a bunch of money off it if they want or take it and give back better co…
I haven't said there's anything wrong with BSD. Where did I say that? As you said, it serves a different purpose.
[deleted]