6 ms·

RMS is the Terence McKenna of open source: a fundational figure whose ideas where way ahead of the curve, but also a too extreme to attract the mainstream.

neilv 7y ago
Almost no one goes full RMS. But I suggest that the world would be much better if everyone went even 50% RMS. Relevant: https://old.reddit.com/r/StallmanWasRight/ https://old.reddit.com/r/StallmanWasRight/ (Disclosure: RMS was a childhood hero, since I read the Steven Levy "Hackers" book, right up there with Mr. Rogers, Richard Feynman, Neil Armstrong, and Marvin Minsky. One day, RMS reached out, to ask me to sign over copyright, to the FSF, of a tiny bit of Emacs code ("Yes, sir!"). Today, I occasionally have the privilege of exchanging emails with him.)
- OskarS 7y ago
  It's true, even though most people don't go "full RMS", he's clearly a force for good in the Universe, and he's fighting the good fight for the benefit of all of us.
  - neilv 7y ago
    RMS has done a lot, but perhaps his main role now is to encourage others to do things. In the good fight, people shouldn't thank him for his service, but rather, join up.
    - TeMPOraL 7y ago
      Indeed. The fight is not over, it barely started. The dangers RMS told us about have materialized in full force now.
      - amenod 7y ago
        Ironically, these dangers are not thwarted by FSF licenses. Even more, the persistence with which FSF fights anything that would dare touch the pillars that they marked as "freedom" is holding back any meaningful discussion about alternatives. For example: https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/recent-licensing-updates https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/recent-licensing-updates > We added the Commons Clause to our list of nonfree licenses... It's particularly nasty given that the name, and the fact that it is attached to pre-existing free licenses, may make it seem as if the work is still free software. So while RMS was undeniably a force of good, we should take his advice with grain of salt, and start discussing which freedoms we can protect, and what the price for that is.
        TeMPOraL 7y ago
        They consider Commons Clause to be harmful for good reasons. To quote from https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#comclause https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#comclause: > The “Commons Clause” is a nonfree license because it forbids selling copies of the program, and even running the program as part of implementing any commercial service. Adding insult to injury, it also twists the words “commons” and “sell.” RMS and FSF's stance on software freedom is ultimately straightforward: they want to protect end user's freedoms, and protecting this involves removing the ability for anyone in between to take away end user's freedoms.
        amenod 7y ago
        Thank you for the downvotes - but winning the (down)voting game doesn't make you right. > They consider Commons Clause to be harmful for good reasons. Your quote only tells that they consider the license non-free. Which is true, if you subscribe to their definition of "freedom" [0] (which I don't - YMMV). Harmful though? I don't think so. Have you looked around lately? Has opensource software won? Where it did, it did because it helped big tech companies to "commoditize their complements". Where it didn't, it is because by itself it doesn't provide hobby developers with any incentive to keep working once the maintaining stops being fun. > RMS and FSF's stance on software freedom is ultimately straightforward: they want to protect end user's freedoms, and protecting this involves removing the ability for anyone in between to take away end user's freedoms. Exactly. What they are missing however is that without developers' engagement you get the situation that we have now. And that some of the freedoms are more important than others - like freedom to repair, to run for every purpose, and... to actually have a polished piece of software. Do you still think opensource "won"? In the end it's a free world, or it should be. Also free to decide which license to use. And free from hordes of preachers falling on every mention of Commons Clause.</rant> [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition#The_definition_and_the_Four_Freedoms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition#T...
- latexr 7y ago
  > But I suggest that the world would be much better if everyone went even 50% RMS. I disagree. Stallman infuriates and disappoints just as much as he inspires. He often comes off as rambling and intransigent. Years ago I found an open letter to him that I found reasonable[1]. Near the end, the writer considers how Stallman’s way of presenting an argument is harmful to his goal: > Dr. Stallman, I have a tremendous amount of respect for your contributions to GNU, emacs and gdb amongst others. You are a man of considerable intellect and programming ability. That said, I nor the people that I spoke with about your talk found you to be a particularly charismatic or persuasive speaker. The only people that seemed convinced by your speech were the ones who had already been leaning towards your point of view to start with. Several friends of mine who had not heard of the FSF before left half way through because they were so put off by some of conspiratorial rhetoric above. Stallman’s reply was a single line: > I am skeptical of advice from people who disagree with what I stand for. Stallman isn’t a paragon or righteousness. He’s a rambling human with as many biases and unreasonable obsessions as the next person. He makes me question if he really wants to change the behaviour of the masses, or if he just wants to mock and deride what he doesn’t like. If he’s going for the former, he’s doing an awful job; you don’t convince people to change their views with aggressiveness and ridicule. If he’s going for the latter that’s his prerogative, but it’s not my belief that people like that are beneficial to the world. [1]: http://alexeymk.com/dear-dr-stallman-an-open-letter/ http://alexeymk.com/dear-dr-stallman-an-open-letter/ [2]: http://alexeymk.com/dear-dr-stallman-the-aftermath/ http://alexeymk.com/dear-dr-stallman-the-aftermath/
  - neilv 7y ago
    I'm sympathetic to what I think you're talking about, and I've had a few discussions about that. I think your assessment is too harsh in some ways, and I'd like to mention a few thoughts why... In some regards, some things that seem arbitrary actually have a large amount of informed reasoning behind them. He doesn't show off, and maybe makes his arguments too simple, in simple language, but I've seen him trot out more of the logic and academic terms&references on occasion (for people who know those terms&references). And I think this ties in with him being obstinate/uncompromising: it's wrt logic he's worked out (and some values weights specific to him). IMHO, we need some uncompromising people, to provide different perspectives, and as a check against all the rest of us (including myself) who compromise more easily. Some other things that seem arbitrary actually might be, even if they seem counterproductive (not, e.g., a principles reason). For a simple example, I've suggested a few times that saying "free software" to people unfamiliar with the term seems to derail many discussions, or is just confusing (especially when we keep doing it after the somewhat less-confusing "libre software" term). I think probably RMS has decided saying "free software" creates an opportunity to educate someone new on what "software freedom" is (even at the cost of any other discussion that was going on). Maybe "free software" is also a wordplay that appeals to him (like "GNU" being a recursive initialism), and which he thinks others might like. But I haven't seen that seem to work well in practice, overall. (Or maybe it works better one-on-one for him than it does in larger practice by others?) Which brings me to another theory: RMS might think a bit differently than our typical programmer, and this might also affect his advocacy. We tend to think others are like us (sometimes more than they are), and we might also use ourselves to help model others. I suspect RMS realizes that others are a bit different, but I don't know whether he doesn't understand people well enough to influence them as well as he could, or he's prioritizing differently. For example, promoting the "software freedom" idea itself takes priority over everything else, including the goals of the person he's talking with and any promotion that might immediately build on those goals. (I can't get into details, but I've also seen setbacks due to RMS/FSF being seemingly misled by people who said the right catchphrases to him/them. Usually people mainly enthusiastic, not intentional manipulators. I don't know how well he was able to read them, and maybe he could read them, but was willing to take a chance because his mission needs a lot more workers.) I think we're blessed to have at least one "full RMS". How does shooting for 50% RMS for everyone else sound?
MperorM 7y ago
Just curious. In what way was Terence McKenna ahead of the curve? All I've heard from him seems really crazy. Suggesting the most plausable explenation for the origin creatures you speak with on DMT is that they're other dimensional aliens (or something close to that). I'm really confused to why so many people whom I respect find him insightful.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- Lapsa 7y ago
  I like that fella for his ability to craft narrative. his vocabulary and thought labyrinths are top notch. not necessarily believing all the stuff he did.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

neilv 7y ago

Almost no one goes full RMS. But I suggest that the world would be much better if everyone went even 50% RMS. Relevant: https://old.reddit.com/r/StallmanWasRight/ https://old.reddit.com/r/StallmanWasRight/ (Disclosure: RMS was a childhood hero, since I read the Steven Levy "Hackers" book, right up there with Mr. Rogers, Richard Feynman, Neil Armstrong, and Marvin Minsky. One day, RMS reached out, to ask me to sign over copyright, to the FSF, of a tiny bit of Emacs code ("Yes, sir!"). Today, I occasionally have the privilege of exchanging emails with him.)

OskarS 7y ago
It's true, even though most people don't go "full RMS", he's clearly a force for good in the Universe, and he's fighting the good fight for the benefit of all of us.
- neilv 7y ago
  RMS has done a lot, but perhaps his main role now is to encourage others to do things. In the good fight, people shouldn't thank him for his service, but rather, join up.
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    Indeed. The fight is not over, it barely started. The dangers RMS told us about have materialized in full force now.
    - amenod 7y ago
      Ironically, these dangers are not thwarted by FSF licenses. Even more, the persistence with which FSF fights anything that would dare touch the pillars that they marked as "freedom" is holding back any meaningful discussion about alternatives. For example: https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/recent-licensing-updates https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/recent-licensing-updates > We added the Commons Clause to our list of nonfree licenses... It's particularly nasty given that the name, and the fact that it is attached to pre-existing free licenses, may make it seem as if the work is still free software. So while RMS was undeniably a force of good, we should take his advice with grain of salt, and start discussing which freedoms we can protect, and what the price for that is.
      - TeMPOraL 7y ago
        They consider Commons Clause to be harmful for good reasons. To quote from https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#comclause https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#comclause: > The “Commons Clause” is a nonfree license because it forbids selling copies of the program, and even running the program as part of implementing any commercial service. Adding insult to injury, it also twists the words “commons” and “sell.” RMS and FSF's stance on software freedom is ultimately straightforward: they want to protect end user's freedoms, and protecting this involves removing the ability for anyone in between to take away end user's freedoms.
        amenod 7y ago
        Thank you for the downvotes - but winning the (down)voting game doesn't make you right. > They consider Commons Clause to be harmful for good reasons. Your quote only tells that they consider the license non-free. Which is true, if you subscribe to their definition of "freedom" [0] (which I don't - YMMV). Harmful though? I don't think so. Have you looked around lately? Has opensource software won? Where it did, it did because it helped big tech companies to "commoditize their complements". Where it didn't, it is because by itself it doesn't provide hobby developers with any incentive to keep working once the maintaining stops being fun. > RMS and FSF's stance on software freedom is ultimately straightforward: they want to protect end user's freedoms, and protecting this involves removing the ability for anyone in between to take away end user's freedoms. Exactly. What they are missing however is that without developers' engagement you get the situation that we have now. And that some of the freedoms are more important than others - like freedom to repair, to run for every purpose, and... to actually have a polished piece of software. Do you still think opensource "won"? In the end it's a free world, or it should be. Also free to decide which license to use. And free from hordes of preachers falling on every mention of Commons Clause.</rant> [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition#The_definition_and_the_Four_Freedoms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition#T...
latexr 7y ago
> But I suggest that the world would be much better if everyone went even 50% RMS. I disagree. Stallman infuriates and disappoints just as much as he inspires. He often comes off as rambling and intransigent. Years ago I found an open letter to him that I found reasonable[1]. Near the end, the writer considers how Stallman’s way of presenting an argument is harmful to his goal: > Dr. Stallman, I have a tremendous amount of respect for your contributions to GNU, emacs and gdb amongst others. You are a man of considerable intellect and programming ability. That said, I nor the people that I spoke with about your talk found you to be a particularly charismatic or persuasive speaker. The only people that seemed convinced by your speech were the ones who had already been leaning towards your point of view to start with. Several friends of mine who had not heard of the FSF before left half way through because they were so put off by some of conspiratorial rhetoric above. Stallman’s reply was a single line: > I am skeptical of advice from people who disagree with what I stand for. Stallman isn’t a paragon or righteousness. He’s a rambling human with as many biases and unreasonable obsessions as the next person. He makes me question if he really wants to change the behaviour of the masses, or if he just wants to mock and deride what he doesn’t like. If he’s going for the former, he’s doing an awful job; you don’t convince people to change their views with aggressiveness and ridicule. If he’s going for the latter that’s his prerogative, but it’s not my belief that people like that are beneficial to the world. [1]: http://alexeymk.com/dear-dr-stallman-an-open-letter/ http://alexeymk.com/dear-dr-stallman-an-open-letter/ [2]: http://alexeymk.com/dear-dr-stallman-the-aftermath/ http://alexeymk.com/dear-dr-stallman-the-aftermath/
- neilv 7y ago
  I'm sympathetic to what I think you're talking about, and I've had a few discussions about that. I think your assessment is too harsh in some ways, and I'd like to mention a few thoughts why... In some regards, some things that seem arbitrary actually have a large amount of informed reasoning behind them. He doesn't show off, and maybe makes his arguments too simple, in simple language, but I've seen him trot out more of the logic and academic terms&references on occasion (for people who know those terms&references). And I think this ties in with him being obstinate/uncompromising: it's wrt logic he's worked out (and some values weights specific to him). IMHO, we need some uncompromising people, to provide different perspectives, and as a check against all the rest of us (including myself) who compromise more easily. Some other things that seem arbitrary actually might be, even if they seem counterproductive (not, e.g., a principles reason). For a simple example, I've suggested a few times that saying "free software" to people unfamiliar with the term seems to derail many discussions, or is just confusing (especially when we keep doing it after the somewhat less-confusing "libre software" term). I think probably RMS has decided saying "free software" creates an opportunity to educate someone new on what "software freedom" is (even at the cost of any other discussion that was going on). Maybe "free software" is also a wordplay that appeals to him (like "GNU" being a recursive initialism), and which he thinks others might like. But I haven't seen that seem to work well in practice, overall. (Or maybe it works better one-on-one for him than it does in larger practice by others?) Which brings me to another theory: RMS might think a bit differently than our typical programmer, and this might also affect his advocacy. We tend to think others are like us (sometimes more than they are), and we might also use ourselves to help model others. I suspect RMS realizes that others are a bit different, but I don't know whether he doesn't understand people well enough to influence them as well as he could, or he's prioritizing differently. For example, promoting the "software freedom" idea itself takes priority over everything else, including the goals of the person he's talking with and any promotion that might immediately build on those goals. (I can't get into details, but I've also seen setbacks due to RMS/FSF being seemingly misled by people who said the right catchphrases to him/them. Usually people mainly enthusiastic, not intentional manipulators. I don't know how well he was able to read them, and maybe he could read them, but was willing to take a chance because his mission needs a lot more workers.) I think we're blessed to have at least one "full RMS". How does shooting for 50% RMS for everyone else sound?

MperorM 7y ago

Just curious. In what way was Terence McKenna ahead of the curve? All I've heard from him seems really crazy. Suggesting the most plausable explenation for the origin creatures you speak with on DMT is that they're other dimensional aliens (or something close to that). I'm really confused to why so many people whom I respect find him insightful.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
Lapsa 7y ago
I like that fella for his ability to craft narrative. his vocabulary and thought labyrinths are top notch. not necessarily believing all the stuff he did.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]