4 ms·

Stallman is hypocritical. He says a lot of good sounding things that lure you into ideas that subtly contradict the bait he catches you with. Justification and

Stallman is hypocritical. He says a lot of good sounding things that lure you into ideas that subtly contradict the bait he catches you with. Justification and examples of these claims here ( https://github.com/amark/gun/pull/434#issuecomment-336536807 https://github.com/amark/gun/pull/434#issuecomment-336536807 ) on an old old old issue around a GPL code dependency we had to reject.

madez 8y ago
On one hand, it is bad style to accuse someone with strong words while only throwing with a link to give foundation to your judgement. This does not create a constructive environment to debate and learn. On the other hand, both claims in the linked comment are not reasonable. For the first point in the link, software can be created and shared for money with the GPL while not preventing libraries to collect the software and provide it free of charge. For the second point, the given link does not give any foundation to the claim the Richard Stallman is against cooperations.
- marknadal 8y ago
  Many in this thread are quoting his "non-free" statement yet ignorant that Stallman violates his own standard. That totally counts and proves the point. Besides the fact he outright calls corporations evil?
  - madez 8y ago
    You once again gave no direct argument for your accusation. If you can't or are unwilling to do so, please don't put out accusations.
  - boomboomsubban 8y ago
    At no point has "free software" meant "without pay," though it is common for distribution without a paywall. The owner may do what they like with their "property," which also means you can distribute it without cost after you buy it. Your belief that money should not be exchanged does not mean he is a hypocrite, it means you disagree on something.
  - simion314 8y ago
    Your point is that is that corporations are good? I see everyday here that corporations are in for the money so Google/Amazon and the developers should work on killing machines because shareholders demand it, CEO needs to bring more and more money, users are a resources to be exploited to gain money . Free software is defined as "Freedom for the users" not for developers so in rapport with free software corporations are evil because they will ALWAYS screw the user for money(because they MUST because shareholders want more and more money). If you think RMS is contradicting himself then you are missinterpreting something or your logic is not working right, pleaae post the free software or RMS rules/laws here, then show the logic process you are doing to show a contradiction
esotericn 8y ago
The first link, from your argument, does not work any more. In the second I see no point at which Stallman claims that he is "not okay" with corporations. To paraphrase, he states that they are psychopathic / amoral. The value judgement there is on you, not him.

madez 8y ago

On one hand, it is bad style to accuse someone with strong words while only throwing with a link to give foundation to your judgement. This does not create a constructive environment to debate and learn. On the other hand, both claims in the linked comment are not reasonable. For the first point in the link, software can be created and shared for money with the GPL while not preventing libraries to collect the software and provide it free of charge. For the second point, the given link does not give any foundation to the claim the Richard Stallman is against cooperations.

marknadal 8y ago
Many in this thread are quoting his "non-free" statement yet ignorant that Stallman violates his own standard. That totally counts and proves the point. Besides the fact he outright calls corporations evil?
- madez 8y ago
  You once again gave no direct argument for your accusation. If you can't or are unwilling to do so, please don't put out accusations.
- boomboomsubban 8y ago
  At no point has "free software" meant "without pay," though it is common for distribution without a paywall. The owner may do what they like with their "property," which also means you can distribute it without cost after you buy it. Your belief that money should not be exchanged does not mean he is a hypocrite, it means you disagree on something.
- simion314 8y ago
  Your point is that is that corporations are good? I see everyday here that corporations are in for the money so Google/Amazon and the developers should work on killing machines because shareholders demand it, CEO needs to bring more and more money, users are a resources to be exploited to gain money . Free software is defined as "Freedom for the users" not for developers so in rapport with free software corporations are evil because they will ALWAYS screw the user for money(because they MUST because shareholders want more and more money). If you think RMS is contradicting himself then you are missinterpreting something or your logic is not working right, pleaae post the free software or RMS rules/laws here, then show the logic process you are doing to show a contradiction

esotericn 8y ago

The first link, from your argument, does not work any more. In the second I see no point at which Stallman claims that he is "not okay" with corporations. To paraphrase, he states that they are psychopathic / amoral. The value judgement there is on you, not him.