4 ms·

Absolutely 100% agree, but Open Source is more than that, it is actually more "free" than "Free Software". Richard Stallman is just flat out wrong, and I'd be m

Absolutely 100% agree, but Open Source is more than that, it is actually more "free" than "Free Software". Richard Stallman is just flat out wrong, and I'd be more than happy to get into a public debate with him: I've spoken about this on The ChangeLog podcast[1], Hackernoon[2], and other places[3], to copy some of it here: Stallman is wrong. He correctly claims that users should have freedom, but then argues for the following two thoughts that contradict each other and the premise of freedom: 1. He is okay with people charging money for their code[4]. This creates SES (socioeconomic status) barriers for vulnerable and impoverished people. This is like saying "access to information and education should be free" but then charging admission for a public library. Further, that could prevent people from review/verifying the program before purchasing it. This does not help create a free and flourishing society. Non-material goods (like software) should be free up to their economies of scale, instead charging for services/products (consulting, material goods, hosting things beyond scale, or penalizing people for themselves charging/spying on users). 2. But he is not okay with corporations [5]. What is the difference between a person charging (1) for something and a company charging (2) for something? Corporation literally comes from "corpus" in Latin, which means "body" (a person), a "body" of persons is a corporation. Corporations can be psychopaths, but so can individual people or other bodies of people (like the government). It is contradictory thinking of Stallman (and thus hypocrisy and heresy of his own ideology) to be okay with (1) but not okay with (2). Personally, the most concise way to better express these ideas is just the decentralization of power. For me, any individual, group, corporation, or government that becomes too powerful represents a danger to any and everybody else. This is why we are building P2P systems and enabling end-to-end encryption, that can be used by any and all of us (whether individuals, groups, corporations, or governments). If we can create equal opportunities, free for all to compete and cooperate, we will enable the most freedom and flourishing for all. [1] https://changelog.com/podcast/236 https://changelog.com/podcast/236 [2] https://hackernoon.com/the-implications-of-rethinkdb-and-parse-shutdowns-c076460058f7 https://hackernoon.com/the-implications-of-rethinkdb-and-par... [3] https://github.com/amark/gun/pull/434#issuecomment-336536807 https://github.com/amark/gun/pull/434#issuecomment-336536807 [4] https://www.datamation.com/osrc/article.php/12068_3737586_3/Richard-Stallman-Live-and-Unplugged.htm https://www.datamation.com/osrc/article.php/12068_3737586_3/... [5] https://stallman.org/articles/why-we-need-a-state.html https://stallman.org/articles/why-we-need-a-state.html

wnoise 8y ago
> 2. But he is not okay with corporations [5]. > [5] https://stallman.org/articles/why-we-need-a-state.html https://stallman.org/articles/why-we-need-a-state.html That link does not demonstrate what you're claiming it demonstrates.
- marknadal 8y ago
  Why not? There are countless interviews where he rants about his hatred of corporations. Saying "no he doesn't" doesn't demonstrate any counterpoint. Tell me, what is he saying then?
  - sgift 8y ago
    In that post he says "we need a state" and states quite clearly why we need it. I was surprised. I expected another Stallman rant, but that was .. quite coherent and insightful for a change. One of his better articles.
    - marknadal 8y ago
      "corporations are psychopaths" ~ Stallman, in the discussed article. Psychopath: a chronic mental disorder with abnormal or violent social behavior. I think it is pretty far fetched to suggest I was misrepresenting Stallman. Sure the article discusses the need for a state, but very clearly suggests his primary interests in the state is to stop CEOs from intentionally murdering their own customers. The gravity of irony is so severe, it forgets some of the most appalling history lessons of Stalin, Mao, Hitler and others. So yes, I'll debate Stallman any day any where.
  - boomboomsubban 8y ago
    His objection to corporations seems to be that corporations don't have innate morals, so need additional rules placed on them. Even if the word derives from "person," it is not a person. That said, I don't see how you can expand this to him thinking corporations shouldn't sell software. He seems largely fine with Red Hat, save some ideological issues.

wnoise 8y ago

> 2. But he is not okay with corporations [5]. > [5] https://stallman.org/articles/why-we-need-a-state.html https://stallman.org/articles/why-we-need-a-state.html That link does not demonstrate what you're claiming it demonstrates.

marknadal 8y ago
Why not? There are countless interviews where he rants about his hatred of corporations. Saying "no he doesn't" doesn't demonstrate any counterpoint. Tell me, what is he saying then?
- sgift 8y ago
  In that post he says "we need a state" and states quite clearly why we need it. I was surprised. I expected another Stallman rant, but that was .. quite coherent and insightful for a change. One of his better articles.
  - marknadal 8y ago
    "corporations are psychopaths" ~ Stallman, in the discussed article. Psychopath: a chronic mental disorder with abnormal or violent social behavior. I think it is pretty far fetched to suggest I was misrepresenting Stallman. Sure the article discusses the need for a state, but very clearly suggests his primary interests in the state is to stop CEOs from intentionally murdering their own customers. The gravity of irony is so severe, it forgets some of the most appalling history lessons of Stalin, Mao, Hitler and others. So yes, I'll debate Stallman any day any where.
- boomboomsubban 8y ago
  His objection to corporations seems to be that corporations don't have innate morals, so need additional rules placed on them. Even if the word derives from "person," it is not a person. That said, I don't see how you can expand this to him thinking corporations shouldn't sell software. He seems largely fine with Red Hat, save some ideological issues.