Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A short critique of Stallmanism

jancorazza.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 203 posts

Re: A short critique of Stallmanism

#131

Post by jordigh »

smsm42 wrote: post #97
jordigh wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is it that you want to do that the GPL will not allow you? How is the GPL taking your freedom or society's freedom away?

That's an easy question. Make software that combines GPL and non-GPL code. GPL, due to it's political nature, makes it purposedly hard to inter-operate with software that does not carry its philosophy. Maybe it's good for philosophy (which I am yet to see any serious proof of, but maybe I'm just ignorant and it is going great there) but certainly isn't good for me, even when I can reuse the components separately.

That's not true. You can combine GPL and non-GPL code, as long as the non-GPL code is compatible with the GPL. Pretty much all of the popular free licenses are compatible with the GPL.

I think there's a widespread misconception that you have to relicense code in order to combine it with the GPL. You don't. The code can retain its license, because its license allows it to be used with the GPL.

Saying that you have to relicense MIT-licensed code under the GPL is like saying that you have to grant a special proprietary license for Apple if they want to use your code in macOS.

Re: A short critique of Stallmanism

#132

Post by yuhong »

vivekd wrote: post #66

I don't agree with everything in this article but I think a part of it really put into words something I had been feeling for some time. I had always found it easy to agree with Stallman's view of free software. I think most reasonable people who didn't have a stake in proprietary software would agree with him. But, something about Stallman that made it hard for me to really take his movement seriously enough to want…

More precisely, I wonder why it is considered an ethical issue in the first place. I wonder if it is coming from hacker culture.

Re: A short critique of Stallmanism

#133

Post by coldtea »

Fnoord wrote: post #123
cbdfghh wrote: post #72

IMHO, Stallman made two mistakes: 1. He moved into politics (which is in my HO, one of the failure points of a lot of tech people. Everyone has a right to an opinion, but certain people have more talent at politics than others, and certain people have more talents at code than others). He's a great programmer, and could have pushed the FSF community directly by committing and improving code. And even if he can't code…

> What new coding projects were they involved in since HURD started (OK. Replicant.)? "New" is difficult to assess. I'd say: GPLv3, Libreboot (fork of Coreboot). But it depends on what you find important. A starting point is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Software_Foundation#High_... > 2. He doesn't let the FSF be larger than him. > Who's their 2nd in command? Fallacy, easily disproven at https://en.wikiped…

>I guess you never heard of Eben Moglen (who's a lawyer and does great work with advocacy and public speeches), or Bradley Kuhn from FSF Europe.

You say this as if to refute them, but that's exactly the parent's point. Nobody, or few, have heard of those people. It's all Stallman all the time.

It's not about them existing (nobody doubted that the FSF has somebody that's 2nd in command) -- it's about them getting the same spotlight.

>I'd say: GPLv3, Libreboot (fork of Coreboot).

Yeah, great successes both.

>Did you know who'd gonna take over Microsoft or Apple beforehand? No.

For one, we kind of do. Cook's name was referred to as the possible successor for years. And in Micosoft there are 3-6 senior executives that everybody expected to succeed Gates and then Ballmer, and one of them eventually did. Besides, those are for profit companies. With communities, organizations it should be even more transparent.

Re: A short critique of Stallmanism

#134

Post by spangry »

int_19h wrote: post #117
spangry wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would have thought the FSF/Stallman would be perfectly fine with this. Their main objective is to maximise the freedom of users by advocating for software that can be inspected, modified, shared etc. As far as I know, they are not opposed to someone making a private income off this kind of software. However, it's probably true to say that a number of possible methods of extracting an income would be closed off to y…

Thing is, a very common model along these lines is to dual-license under copyleft for free, and proprietary commercial license for those who don't like copyleft "virality" (e.g. the way Qt used to do it until switching to LGPL). This works great; but the proprietary part is completely antithetical to the whole "free software" concept.

I've been thinking about the dual-licensing approach. Strategically, one could argue that it still aligns with FSF goals. My logic is roughly:

(objective) We want people to use software that doesn't oppress them -> People naturally want to use the 'best' software -> Copyleft licences ensure the 'best' software is non-oppressive (via open source, freedom to modify etc.) as derivative improvements can be merged back into the mainline.

The key part is that the 'non-oppressive' software is 'the best' (or at least of decent quality) so that people will naturally use it and society as a whole will remain un-oppressed. Mightn't one extend this logic and say: Although we don't get the benefit of useful modifications being mainlined for closed-source, secondarily licensed derivatives, more money for the project means more resources/devs -> ultimately means improved mainline software?

I mean, I'm unsure if I agree with that argument, but it seems at least plausible.

Re: A short critique of Stallmanism

#135

Post by [deleted] »

phpnode wrote: post #130
gkya wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, want it or not GNU/ is a big part of Linux distros, at least until a distro with an alternative userland and c library makes it to the top. And even then most of open source has some GNU somewhere in the foundation.

The insistence that Linux be called GNU/Linux when even Linus calls it Linux is exactly the kind of behaviour that alienates people who would otherwise align with them. There is also no requirement that a Linux distribution includes any GNU software at all, should we refer to them as e.g Busybox/Linux?

[deleted]

Re: A short critique of Stallmanism

#136

Post by jcora »

labster wrote: post #103
aaronbrethorst wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're not all from the Bronx. Some of them are from Brooklyn ;) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders

Heh, I get it, they're both socialists and all. But Bernie is the opposite of what OP describes. Stallman is a purist, Sanders is a realist. Stallman fights to keep "GNU/" attached to "Linux", while Sanders talks about the fake news coming to people on Facebook's closed platform.

The sentiment of this comment is correct. Free software should be an integrated part of a wider movement for emancipation, and only harms itself by being so pedantic and hermetic. However, I don't really have a problem with insisting on the name GNU/Linux, and that's why I didn't even mention it in particular: I believe it's simply a matter of being fair and technically precise.

Re: A short critique of Stallmanism

#137

Post by jcora »

phpnode wrote: post #130
gkya wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, want it or not GNU/ is a big part of Linux distros, at least until a distro with an alternative userland and c library makes it to the top. And even then most of open source has some GNU somewhere in the foundation.

The insistence that Linux be called GNU/Linux when even Linus calls it Linux is exactly the kind of behaviour that alienates people who would otherwise align with them. There is also no requirement that a Linux distribution includes any GNU software at all, should we refer to them as e.g Busybox/Linux?

> The insistence that Linux be called GNU/Linux when even Linus calls it Linux is exactly the kind of behaviour that alienates people who would otherwise align with them.

I don't agree with this actually, that's why I didn't even mention this. I believe GNU was indispensable to the wider Linux phenomenon. It's a matter of being fair and technically precise.

Re: A short critique of Stallmanism

#138

Post by jcora »

zekevermillion wrote: post #58

RMS' personal choices are important. I could not live with the same ethical purity myself when it comes to software choices (or for that matter, much of anything else). But I have been personally influenced by reading his essays on ethical topics. If he did not live consistent with his personal ethics, not only would he be much less persuasive, but also he would be at conflict with himself. the critic is right that s…

I have too been influenced by Stallman but I don't see why anyone should be above critique. I've developed as a person, politically, and think that my criticism may be useful to well-intentioned peopled, that's why I wrote this.

> However, it does not follow that living in an ethical manner is pointless.

I fully disagree. Personal ethics is only important with interpersonal relationships. Anything political transcends the individual and his actions and requires systemic analysis and action. That is the point of the article.

Re: A short critique of Stallmanism

#140

Post by jcora »

greyman wrote: post #14

> Stallman's rhetoric is filled with this problematic logic on all layers: from trying to correct other people's terminology Yes, this is my main obstacle accepting RMS. In my opinion, he took the word "free", made a term "free software", and described it in accordance with his agenda, while what he advocated only partially conforms to the meaning of the word "free" or "freedom". There are certainly licenses offering…

Yeah I think you have the opposite mindset than me. Just letting people do what they want is _not_ fighting for freedom, but fighting for the status quo, because inequality exists. In other words the struggle is real
Post reply on HN