4 ms·
I found it interesting that RMS wanted to discuss the issue in private given his position as a almost religious defender of free software. Isn't a part of free
by ma2rten 11y ago
I found it interesting that RMS wanted to discuss the issue in private given his position as a almost religious defender of free software. Isn't a part of free software that it is developed in the open?
- mwcampbell 11y agoNot necessarily. Read Eric Raymond's description of cathedral-style development in "The Cathedral and the Bazaar" and keep in mind that he had Emacs in mind. It wasn't until Linux that an open, public development process became closely associated with free software.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- jordigh 11y agorms doesn't think "free software" has anything to do with a responsibility for collaboration or openness. Those are slogans of the open source movement. He sees software as an ethical exchange between two parties. rms doesn't have a problem with privacy, secrecy, or refusal to collaborate. As long as Bob has the freedom to do whatever he wants with the software the Alice gave him (except, perhaps, restrict the freedom of others), rms doesn't think that Alice has any further moral obligations.