3 ms·

So 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 mea

So 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 ago
The FSF does not demonize nor proselytize against the BSD licenses. They are free software licenses and thus FSF-approved.
- mankash666 11y ago
  FSF'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 ago
That 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 ago
1. 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.

vezzy-fnord 11y ago

The FSF does not demonize nor proselytize against the BSD licenses. They are free software licenses and thus FSF-approved.

mankash666 11y ago
FSF'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 ago

That 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 ago

1. 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.