RMS: Beware of Contradictory “Support”

Post by cpkpad » Tue, Jul 12, 2016, 8:45 AM UTC

fit2rule wrote: post #20

dcgudeman wrote: post #9

I really appreciate what RMS has done as far as start a movement that I think has contributed greatly to the human existence but when he says things like "The basic point of the free software movement is that nonfree software is unjust and should not exist." I can't but seriously question his judgment. It's one thing to personally want to use free software, it's another to claim that nonfree software "should not exis…

Where you sit on this scale of secrecy is very much a matter of what you expect to get out of participating in the software 'business'. RMS' movement allows for little wiggle room when it comes to 'free software', because it is a movement. Unless you're willing to join a movement, its perfectly okay to criticize it from the skirts - but the point is, RMS has set those skirts at a boundary of his choosing, according t…

Post by ajsalminen » Tue, Jul 12, 2016, 8:46 AM UTC

cocotino wrote: post #7

willvarfar wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmm, I asked since my mental model of the 'programming community' that I osmosify by reading comments on these kind of websites detects a slight shift on the RMS popularity front over the last year or so. I feel he's coming in from the cold a bit. I am mostly browsing HN during my european daytime. Lots of people seem to comment on stories during my daytime. Do you mean his detractors are predominantly American? Do y…

I think people are just tired of criticising him. I personally am against him, but it bores me to discuss the same stuff all over again, especially when it's "meta" as you say and can be deemed off topic. (Not from the US)

Post by kiba » Tue, Jul 12, 2016, 8:49 AM UTC

cpkpad wrote: post #25

rmc wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's been RMS & FSF's position for decades. They view it as wrong that you have software which you do not have the four freedom for. Many legal and ethnical systems have limitations on what you can consent to. You're not allowed to consent to work for less than the minimum wage, for example

This is a little bit different. The only reason proprietary software exists is the copyright clause in the Constitution, which grants the government a right to issue limited-time monopolies to creators of original works. Revoking a government-granted monopoly is very libertarian. Revoking mutual consent is the opposite.

Post by cocotino » Tue, Jul 12, 2016, 8:53 AM UTC

kiba wrote: post #36

bdcravens wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Years ago HN had a higher percentage of Slashdot refugees or whatever you want to call them, where what I'd call hard-nosed OSS was part of the dialog and the arguments were fresh. These days, there's many who see him less as a controversial figure within "their" community, and more of a crazy old guy with extremist views.

The crazy old guy who turned out to be right when people do get screwed over. What he's good at doing is pointing out that certain things are not in our interest.

Post by icen » Tue, Jul 12, 2016, 8:57 AM UTC

Svip wrote: post #21

danso wrote: post #10

> There are organizations that proclaim support for free software or the GNU Project, and teach classes in use of nonfree software. It's possible that they do some other things that really support free software, but those classes certainly don't. On the contrary, they work directly against the free software movement by promoting the use of the nonfree software. That increases the magnitude of the practical problem it…

Maybe he means the JavaScript code executed on Airbnb's website is not licenced under a free licence and thus nonfree?