-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Michael C wrote:
| Chris Walters wrote:
| Michael C wrote:
| | Hal Vaughan wrote:
| |> On Friday 04 April 2008, Michael C wrote:
| |>> Hal Vaughan wrote:
| |>>> On Friday 04 April 2008, Michael C wrote:
| |>>>> Ivan Savcic wrote:
| |>>>>> On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 5:12 PM, Andrew Sackville-West
| |>>>>> <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
| |>>>>>> I have a problem with this. Debian, in it's default install is
| |>>>>>> almost assuredly GNU free. And it has the additional freedom of
| |>>>>>> allowing the user to choose to use non-free software within the
| |>>>>>> structure of it's packaging system. IMO that is more free than
| |>>>>>> preventing people from using the software they want.
| |>>>>> I had exactly the same view on that. But RMS is obviously a
| |>>>>> purist, he dreams to banish all closed source from this world.
| |>>>>> Like Hal pointed out, RMS believes that there should be no
| |>>>>> freedom when it comes to choosing freedom itself.
| |>>>>> Ivan
| |>>>> RMS is more of a hypocrite than anything else. He morally objects
| |>>>> to distros/*BSD variants with non-free applications in their
| |>>>> repositories/ports systems, on the grounds that this implicitly
| |>>>> advocates the use of non-free software, whilst explicitly
| |>>>> advocating GPL-licensed software for use in conjunction with that
| |>>>> ultimate proprietary platform, MS Windows:
| |>>>> http://www.gnu.org/software/for-windows.html
| |>>> I think what RMS objects to is anything that was not his idea
| |>>> first.
| |>>> Hal
| |>> Honi soit qui mal y pense!
| |> Merde!
| |> Granted that's just my opinion, based on what I've read and less
| |> 2 1/2 hours at one of his talks (including some time talking to him
| |> afterwards), so I could be way off base, but I did get the sense
| |> his world definitely starts and ends with his own views -- and
| |> basically contains only his views.
| |>> The FSF's list curiously doesn't mention the GNU Foundation's
| |>> for the Win32 port of emacs and gcc:
| |>> http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/windows/ntemacs.html
| |> I admire RMS and a lot of what he's done. I'm currently working on
| |> source for controlling an HD radio in C++ so I'm using gcc, based on
| |> his earlier version and he did write emacs (isn't that an OS or
| |> religion?). That doesn't mean that I think he carries things too
| |> But then again, maybe it's that blindness and need of his to go too
| |> far that has achieved what he has.
| |> Hal
| | FWIW, I don't have any particular problem with the notion --
| implicit in
| | Stallman's position -- that there's a set of positive political
| | which *morally* override the permissive freedom to install
| | software.
| Ah, but there are many who would disagree with that position. There
| was a
| person who once said words to the effect that someone who will not
| fight for
| freedom does not deserve it. Then there are the UN Conventions on
| Human Rights
| - these state, basically, IIRC that the rights of the individual are
| important than any particular moral or political override.
| The idea that using closed source software is morally wrong, it
| problematic, at
| best, since:
| 1. If you drive a car built after a certain point, you are using
| closed source
| software (the computer that controls your engine, and the one that
| your acceleration and activates your airbag).
| 2. If you use a cell phone, you are using closed source software (the
| ROM chip
| set that controls the phone - i.e. finds the cell tower signals and
| locks on).
| 3. If you use just about ANY computer, you are using closed source
| (various ROM and EPROM chips on the mainboard, and on any cards that
| you add on).
| 4. If you use a television, you are using closed source software (the
| and various ROM chips).
| 5. If you use pharmaceuticals, cleaning products, etc. you are, by
| using closed source software (the software that controls the production
| process, the software that the pharmacy uses to fill you prescription,
| and so on).
|> There's the rub. There are practical/political impediments to the
|> exercise of genuine software freedom (the whole panoply of patents,
|> etc.) which no software license, no matter how "progressive", could
|> hope to effectively combat. So it follows that if there's to be real
|> software freedom, it would have to be predicated on new and
|> social, political and economic arrangements.
This would mean the end of modern economic theory (i.e. capitalism -
spectrum). It would require a completely new paradigm of economics,
everyone's basic needs are met, and they can work on other pursuits
motivation, I do not know).
For the record, I, as a programmer and user of
software signed the petition in opposition to software patents. Back
point, we would have to live in a Star Trek like world (i.e. no money)
to come true.
|> But Stallman's is a utopian position, because in place of concrete
|> political and economic analyses of capitalism, all he really has to
|> offer politically is vague talk about extending Free Software's moral
|> example into other social spheres.
Utopian visions are nice to look at, but one must remember that every
theoretical application of such visions result in the implicit
the individual of all rights and freedoms for the good of the whole.
would make the idea of "free" software moot, since the society, as a
would choose which software everyone would use.
If RMS is basing his ideals on the GNU charter, I don't think he read it
clearly enough. "Free: As in freedom". This should apply whether a
wants to use pure open source software, closed source software, or a
both. This is freedom.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----