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

161–170 of 203 posts

Re: A short critique of Stallmanism

#161

Post by paulddraper »

phjesusthatguy3 wrote: post #154
phpnode wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Is there an OS that uses Linux as the kernel but then no GNU software on top of that? It would be interesting to see, at least.

Android

Alpine Linux (of Docker fame)

Lots of embedded stuff

Re: A short critique of Stallmanism

#162

Post by smsm42 »

jordigh wrote: post #131
smsm42 wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> You can combine GPL and non-GPL code, as long as the non-GPL code is compatible with the GPL.

That's a pretty big exception, which reverses your conclusion. It's like saying "not true not everyone can buy Lamborghini Aventador - everybody can, as long as they have half a million dollars to spend!" That's kind of the point that turns your "not true" into false.

> Pretty much all of the popular free licenses are compatible with the GPL.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_free_and_open-so...

Just look at the "GPL compatibility columns". Even GPL2 is not compatible with GPL3 without a special "or later" clause, which is all too easy to miss.

> The code can retain its license, because its license allows it to be used with the GPL.

But if you want to distribute the mix, you'd have to abide by GPL conditions.

Re: A short critique of Stallmanism

#163

Post by Grue3 »

Mouq wrote: post #80
quitspamming wrote: post #77

I'm surprised the HN crowd isn't calling this out for what it is, anti capitalist BS. I've seen people talk about tactics, DRM, ethics, but the author's point was Stallman is right expect for one thing: profit. Stallman tries to explain over and over again how free software can be profitable, and the author of this post's whole point is, "nah, it can't be. Want free software? You need socialism." Stupid article pushi…

Don't really see why it needs to be called out as such. It's pretty explicitly radical leftist. Is Hacker News exclusively capitalist now? TBF I tend to avoid this site, so maybe it is. If you think materialist analysis isn't useful, well, maybe it's not useful to you . But geez, the author didn't even get into, e.g., Marxist analysis or anything so controversial :P

Far left is just as dangerous as far right, and needs to be called out. Ideologies that resulted in deaths of millions shouldn't be socially acceptable.

Re: A short critique of Stallmanism

#164

Post by int_19h »

spangry wrote: post #134
int_19h wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 in…

I think it's a perfectly plausible argument. The problem is that it is a pragmatic argument. It is possible to be pragmatic in pursuit of one's ideals - indeed, I would argue that this approach is the one that usually works best (or at all) - but FSF, and Stallman personally, seem to frown upon short-term pragmatic deviations from ideological purity.

Re: A short critique of Stallmanism

#165

Post by zekevermillion »

jcora wrote: post #138
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 transcend…

Stallman is not above critique, but I don't think you have hit on the more interesting parts of his philosophy to question. If I could eat Chinese with RMS, I would want to ask him about when free hardware will become relevant, and what he thinks about user subjugation that doesn't involve privacy invasion or software restrictions -- like, why isn't it mandatory to boycott every monopoly business? Perhaps at some point he would throw up his hands and say, we're only human!

I take comfort from the Biblical parable, Render Unto Caesar.

Re: A short critique of Stallmanism

#167

Post by phjesusthatguy3 »

paulddraper wrote: post #161
phjesusthatguy3 wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there an OS that uses Linux as the kernel but then no GNU software on top of that? It would be interesting to see, at least.

Android Alpine Linux (of Docker fame) Lots of embedded stuff

yes

Re: A short critique of Stallmanism

#170

Post by vic-traill »

I think the use of 'Stallmanism ' in the headline (with its obvious reference to 'Stalinism ') is pejorative and click-baitish.

Right up there with 'a card-carrying member of the ACLU'[0] and 'sister who was once a thespian'[1].

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_e...

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/1983/02/24/us/legendary-campaign-pepp...

[edit: fixed typo on 'Stalinism']

Post reply on HN