6 ms·

> You've taken that quote out of context, as the next sentence dispels your fear of having to help your mother debug her cell phone. If the next sentence dispe

by dwc 16y ago

> You've taken that quote out of context, as the next sentence dispels your fear of having to help your mother debug her cell phone. If the next sentence dispels that fear, then the quoted sentence is wrong, and should have been left out altogether. And so it is. This is perhaps the biggest fail of the Free Software movement: co-opting a word, phrase or sentence to fill people with idealistic notions that do not represent what GNU and the FSF are really about. This begins with "Free" which translates into rules and restrictions. If you want truly free, there's public domain or BSD-style licenses. GNU/FSF have goals other than true freedom, and they believe strongly in those goals. Many agree with them. I think everyone would be better served saying what they really stand for, starting with changing the name of the FSF.

SwellJoe 16y ago
"If the next sentence dispels that fear, then the quoted sentence is wrong, and should have been left out altogether. And so it is." Sometimes, a thought or concept requires more than one sentence to express.
- dwc 16y ago
  Yes, but not this time. If that sentence were dropped, the remaining text would be more clear and accurate. That sentence is not true. Why should a user be a developer in an ideal world? Why should one be required to be a developer to utilize software? It's not even a world that anyone really wants to move toward. The whole idea is very developer-centric, and doesn't represent an enlightened user perspective.
  - SwellJoe 16y ago
    The point of my comment was that I believe everyone should have the freedom to be a developer. Not that they must be a developer. No one, especially me, has suggested that anyone must do anything. We're talking about freedom here; and I'd like it if users had the same freedoms I've enjoyed over the past couple of decades. That includes having source available for a large percentage of the software I used, so I that I could learn from it and modify it. No one forced me to become a developer in order to use Firefox, but I've always had the freedom to look at and modify the Firefox code (and thus I could, at any moment and without warning or asking permission, transition from being a Firefox user to being a Firefox developer). I think "developer" is a pretty fluid concept, in an ideal world. Anyway, as I've mentioned elsewhere, it is the difference between "may" and "must". You believe I am saying "must", when my intention is "may".
    - dwc 16y ago
      Ah, there's "freedom" again, considered only from one perspective. What about the freedom of someone to make their own work available as closed source? What about when it's a derived work that adds novel new functionality? The FSF is against the freedom to do this, because it promotes other freedoms they like better. What if my important set of freedoms isn't a perfect fit with theirs? What if some random users' important set isn't a perfect match with either mine or the FSF's? If freedom is really what you're after, picking some things at the expense of others can get tricky very fast. If you really want freedom, perhaps you can give away all the rights, so that the recipient can decide what they want to do? After all, you still have the code and you can keep giving it away. This is the new BSD license, or MIT license, or ISC license. According to any non-skewed definition of "freedom" they are more free. Objectively. But maybe you want kind of free, free in some narrow ways that preserve things important to you by putting restrictions on those who get your code so that they also have to preserve the same things you like. If so then that's fine! I totally support your right as the author to choose an appropriate license. But that's not about freedom. It's about propagating your view of how things should be. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with that, but it's not about freedom.
      - SwellJoe 16y ago
        No one is saying you must do anything. No one is demanding you to release your software under an open or free software license. I'm simply saying I would like for a culture of learning and sharing to remain strong and vibrant going forward. You're making this into an ideological flame war, without reason. I haven't demanded anything of you or the software you create. I have suggested that a vibrant and thriving open source or free software community is a good thing. As I mentioned in my first comment, I'm not speaking specifically of the GPL. I happen to like the license, but if you don't, that's fine. I have, nowhere in this conversation, suggested that only the GPL allows the kind of freedom I'm speaking of. The freedom I am speaking of is about building a culture of being able to look at, learn from, modify, and contribute to, the software I (and others) use. And, nowhere have I suggested that only the GPL makes that possible; though I do think RMS and the FSF (and, yes, the GPL) deserve some credit for building the culture we currently enjoy.
jberryman 16y ago
Who is to say your idea of how an abstract concept like "freedom" should apply to software is more correct than Stallman's? > I think everyone would be better served saying what they really stand for, starting with changing the name of the FSF. Okay, I'm stumped. If not the spreading of free software, what exactly is the FSF's agenda? Because without any specifics your comment is just more FUD.
- dwc 16y ago
  > Who is to say your idea of how an abstract concept like "freedom" should apply to software is more correct than Stallman's? I like the dictionary definition of freedom. Stallman has a set of concerns and ideas about how they can be answered, and has set up conditions and restrictions to try to propagate them. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, but freedom isn't a very accurate way to describe it. > If not the spreading of free software, what exactly is the FSF's agenda? Because without any specifics your comment is just more FUD. I don't think my statement are FUD, as I'm trying to correct common misconceptions. If you want what the GPL offers (and many do) then it's only right that you choose it. However, conflating those ideals with freedom is inaccurate and misleading. If actual freedom is what you're after, a new BSD license is much closer to that. Only public domain is more free, but PD has some international interpretation issues. As for the FSF's agenda, I don't pretend that it's an evil, secret conspiracy. It's not. They spell it out well enough on their site for all to see, once you filter out the fake freedom bits. Their core ideals are noble enough, though I disagree with some of their implementation.
saurik 16y ago
Oh come now. The bill of rights guarantees freedom by putting forward a list of restrictions on what other people can do to you. By this simplistic definition of "free" the only "free" society is one where one person is free to enslave everyone (and probably does, but hey: he's living the free dream, right?).

by dwc 16y ago

SwellJoe 16y ago

"If the next sentence dispels that fear, then the quoted sentence is wrong, and should have been left out altogether. And so it is." Sometimes, a thought or concept requires more than one sentence to express.

dwc 16y ago
Yes, but not this time. If that sentence were dropped, the remaining text would be more clear and accurate. That sentence is not true. Why should a user be a developer in an ideal world? Why should one be required to be a developer to utilize software? It's not even a world that anyone really wants to move toward. The whole idea is very developer-centric, and doesn't represent an enlightened user perspective.
- SwellJoe 16y ago
  The point of my comment was that I believe everyone should have the freedom to be a developer. Not that they must be a developer. No one, especially me, has suggested that anyone must do anything. We're talking about freedom here; and I'd like it if users had the same freedoms I've enjoyed over the past couple of decades. That includes having source available for a large percentage of the software I used, so I that I could learn from it and modify it. No one forced me to become a developer in order to use Firefox, but I've always had the freedom to look at and modify the Firefox code (and thus I could, at any moment and without warning or asking permission, transition from being a Firefox user to being a Firefox developer). I think "developer" is a pretty fluid concept, in an ideal world. Anyway, as I've mentioned elsewhere, it is the difference between "may" and "must". You believe I am saying "must", when my intention is "may".
  - dwc 16y ago
    Ah, there's "freedom" again, considered only from one perspective. What about the freedom of someone to make their own work available as closed source? What about when it's a derived work that adds novel new functionality? The FSF is against the freedom to do this, because it promotes other freedoms they like better. What if my important set of freedoms isn't a perfect fit with theirs? What if some random users' important set isn't a perfect match with either mine or the FSF's? If freedom is really what you're after, picking some things at the expense of others can get tricky very fast. If you really want freedom, perhaps you can give away all the rights, so that the recipient can decide what they want to do? After all, you still have the code and you can keep giving it away. This is the new BSD license, or MIT license, or ISC license. According to any non-skewed definition of "freedom" they are more free. Objectively. But maybe you want kind of free, free in some narrow ways that preserve things important to you by putting restrictions on those who get your code so that they also have to preserve the same things you like. If so then that's fine! I totally support your right as the author to choose an appropriate license. But that's not about freedom. It's about propagating your view of how things should be. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with that, but it's not about freedom.
    - SwellJoe 16y ago
      No one is saying you must do anything. No one is demanding you to release your software under an open or free software license. I'm simply saying I would like for a culture of learning and sharing to remain strong and vibrant going forward. You're making this into an ideological flame war, without reason. I haven't demanded anything of you or the software you create. I have suggested that a vibrant and thriving open source or free software community is a good thing. As I mentioned in my first comment, I'm not speaking specifically of the GPL. I happen to like the license, but if you don't, that's fine. I have, nowhere in this conversation, suggested that only the GPL allows the kind of freedom I'm speaking of. The freedom I am speaking of is about building a culture of being able to look at, learn from, modify, and contribute to, the software I (and others) use. And, nowhere have I suggested that only the GPL makes that possible; though I do think RMS and the FSF (and, yes, the GPL) deserve some credit for building the culture we currently enjoy.

jberryman 16y ago

Who is to say your idea of how an abstract concept like "freedom" should apply to software is more correct than Stallman's? > I think everyone would be better served saying what they really stand for, starting with changing the name of the FSF. Okay, I'm stumped. If not the spreading of free software, what exactly is the FSF's agenda? Because without any specifics your comment is just more FUD.

dwc 16y ago
> Who is to say your idea of how an abstract concept like "freedom" should apply to software is more correct than Stallman's? I like the dictionary definition of freedom. Stallman has a set of concerns and ideas about how they can be answered, and has set up conditions and restrictions to try to propagate them. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, but freedom isn't a very accurate way to describe it. > If not the spreading of free software, what exactly is the FSF's agenda? Because without any specifics your comment is just more FUD. I don't think my statement are FUD, as I'm trying to correct common misconceptions. If you want what the GPL offers (and many do) then it's only right that you choose it. However, conflating those ideals with freedom is inaccurate and misleading. If actual freedom is what you're after, a new BSD license is much closer to that. Only public domain is more free, but PD has some international interpretation issues. As for the FSF's agenda, I don't pretend that it's an evil, secret conspiracy. It's not. They spell it out well enough on their site for all to see, once you filter out the fake freedom bits. Their core ideals are noble enough, though I disagree with some of their implementation.

saurik 16y ago

Oh come now. The bill of rights guarantees freedom by putting forward a list of restrictions on what other people can do to you. By this simplistic definition of "free" the only "free" society is one where one person is free to enslave everyone (and probably does, but hey: he's living the free dream, right?).