Re: Negative Summary of the Split Proposal
Chris Lawrence <cnlawren@olemiss.edu> writes:
> On Jun 30, John Goerzen wrote:
> > Pardon me, but while I agree that there is really no need for the
> > separation, I must disagree fervently with your argument likening RMS,
> > and the FSF (to whom we owe our very existance) to the Bolsheviks.
>
> I am not arguing this; there are plenty of people out there who have
> the *perception* that we are Bolsheviks. This proposal will give more
In this case, what relevance does it have to the discussion at hand?
The day we are ruled by marketing concerns is the day we are doomed to
a fate akin to RedHat.
> I don't think RMS is a Bolshevik. I haven't quite decided *what* he
> is (I suspect he's what Europeans would call a socialist, which really
> doesn't mean anything anymore in the Blair-Schroeder era... but I
> digress ;-).
Read his own writings on the subject; you'll find it most
interesting.
> > Also, please don't put words into the mouth of Mr. Stallman. This is
> > really disturbing to see.
>
> Identify where I did so. In this thread he advocated this proposal
> (in the 1243 permutation), and I did not extrapolate his position
> beyond that.
You claim that we must choose between serving/trusting RMS and doing
so for our users. RMS has made no such demand. By presenting those
two options that are not mutually exclusive as such, you have either
committed a severe fallacy or are trying to say that RMS is demanding
something that he is not. Either way, it is a flawed and misleading
argument.
-- John
--
John Goerzen Linux, Unix consulting & programming jgoerzen@complete.org |
Developer, Debian GNU/Linux (Free powerful OS upgrade) www.debian.org |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
The 182,819th digit of pi is 6.
Reply to: