4 ms·
Stallman in fact is quite a centrist and a pragmatist. The problem is that the software freedom landscape is so incredibly shifted towards the non-free end of t
by tedks 11y ago
Stallman in fact is quite a centrist and a pragmatist. The problem is that the software freedom landscape is so incredibly shifted towards the non-free end of the spectrum that he appears to be a radical. We can easily conceive of a radical splinter group of the FSF, the SLF (software liberation front), advocating:
1. Only the use of the AGPL license. No other license is considered free, because all other licenses can be used in some way to limit the freedom of users. As soon as a license more free than the AGPL comes along, only that will be the free license. (In contrast, the FSF promotes the Apache license, the LGPL, and similar, when it is strategic to the free software agenda.)
2. Never interoperate with non-free software. To do so is to condone actions that may prolong someone's lack of freedom. The fact this may be necessary for their work or personal life is irrelevant. (In contrast, most GNU software runs on Windows, which Stallman probably sees as no different from it running on the proprietary Unices he wrote it on.)
3. Do not allow the execution of non-free code, if your free program executes code. (In contrast, gNewSense or IceCat will execute any x86 or javascript you throw at them, even if it doesn't have licensing metadata that identifies it as free.)
The FSF and Stallman are in fact quite tolerant in an absolute sense compared to our hypothetical SLF. This doesn't even go into the other strategies or tactics such an extreme group could engage in, such as firebombing the Microsoft offices or forcibly liberating source code. Instead, the FSF restricts itself to very tame boycott politics.
You in particular have a gross misunderstanding of Stallman's strategies and tactics, even if you might understand his goals. Stallman is a moderate. He thinks pragmatically, even if he's sometimes wrong (protesting DRM at apple stores is probably a waste, as is protesting furriers, but sometimes you can't help but want to speak out).
- mankash666 11y agoSo your argument is: Stallman is a moderate when compared to a hypothetical software terrorist? In the real world, Stallman is still a radical. The English meaning of the word freedom cannot be twisted for suiting one's philosophy. True freedom lies in allowing your work to be modified without restrictions - like the BSD or Apache licenses offer. Daemonizing software released under those licenses, and proselytizing against their use IS radical.
- vezzy-fnord 11y agoThe FSF does not demonize nor proselytize against the BSD licenses. They are free software licenses and thus FSF-approved.
- mankash666 11y agoFSF's most vocal proponent has gone on record with his opinion on the BSD/Apache licensed software. http://developers.slashdot.org/story/15/02/08/210241/rms-objects-to-support-for-llvms-debugger-in-gnu-emacss-gudel http://developers.slashdot.org/story/15/02/08/210241/rms-obj...
- adrusi 11y agoThat is not true freedom, because it still works within the confines of the law. No, true freedom would mean it it impossible to have anything be anything other than public domain because there would be no one to enforce IP. The free software movement with its copyleft licenses strives for this kind of freedom, but having been yet unable to eradicate IP law, essentially uses it to undo itself. "My creation rejects intellectual property and so must everyone who uses my creation." It seems contradictory because it is, and it is very self aware of that. Because licenses like the gpl aren't an end in themselves, they are simply a crude attempt to mimic the idyllic end game: no copyright law covering software at all.
- tedks 11y ago1. You are factually wrong in saying that Stallman demonizes software released under permissive free licenses, and factually wrong in saying that Stallman proselytizes against their use. I will not link you to any of the numerous examples of Stallman doing so, because you must find your own truth, and you must make your own DuckDuckGo searches. If you have any honor, you will do this. If you do not, you have blinded yourself and chosen, willfully, ignorance over knowledge. Nothing can forgive this. 2. The point of the parable of the SLF is to pose an actual radical group in the software freedom space similar to the actually radical groups in other political spheres such as animal liberation (ALF), environmentalism (ELF), feminism (Wimmen's Fire Brigade), socialism (RAF), anti-racism (Black Panther Party), or queer liberation (Bash Back!). The outlook of a radical is fundamentally different from the outlook of a liberal. A radical does not negotiate. A radical does not not make strategic compromises. This is rarely a strategic or tactical choice and more often an ideological one, and it seems mostly orthogonal to the effectiveness of the radical group (history is rife with radicals who have made enormous gains, often being entirely transformative on the societies they set out to change). Stallman does not demonstrate any of the qualities of a radical other than that his views are very different from most others. But this alone does not a radical make. 3. Arguing from a definition is a weak stance indeed. It is an appeal to the most meaningless of authority. Stallman disagrees that freedom lies in allowing your work to be modified without restrictions; he rather posits that freedom lies in the ability of a user to have total self-determination over the code that they execute. Neither of these definitions is in a dictionary, and a dictionary cannot offer any source of philosophical, ethical, or moral truth, nor should it. This is a deeper matter than that.