4 ms·

The idea of free software is a very libertarian one. You have freedom. Its the same ideology that drives concepts such as freedom of speech. It is not compatibl

by swebs 6y ago

The idea of free software is a very libertarian one. You have freedom. Its the same ideology that drives concepts such as freedom of speech. It is not compatible at all with the authoritarianism that drives cancel culture. Maybe these people should get together and form their own authoritarian-left software foundation. Call it the People's Software Foundation or something. No Dang, I'm not being snarky. This is a legitimate suggestion.

krapp 6y ago
It's ironic that you're claiming free software isn't compatible with authoritarianism while suggesting that anyone who doesn't support the Great Leader isn't welcome and should voluntarily purge themselves from the movement.
- toomim 6y ago
  RMS doesn't lead with authoritarianism. You're assuming that anyone who is in a position of leadership is an "authoritarian," but that's not what the word means.
  - krapp 6y ago
    You're purposely misinterpreting my comment, so this will be my only reply to you here. The authoritarianism is in the community, and the opinion held by many within it that one cannot be a member of the Free Software community and oppose the leadership of Richard Stallman or be critical of his behavior. Everyone who does so is regarded as a traitor, a shill working for the interests of the proprietary software establishment or a SJW spreading lies and false claims. I've already seen several comments calling for the removal of "the SJWs" from the movement, and praise for the community's intolerance of any view outside of its political orthodoxy.
- swebs 6y ago
  That's a real stretch. "Voluntarily" and "authoritarianism" are opposites. But that's beside the point. I'm not saying anyone is unwelcome or should leave. In fact, I think it would be best if people could coexist in the same organization while agreeing to disagree. But the fact of the matter is that these people already resigning. So instead of just doing nothing after they resign or working for some company, they should create their own group that's more in line with their ideals.
tssva 6y ago
The FSF promoting the use of only GPL licenses seems to indicate their version of freedom to be you should have freedom as long as you follow these specific rules we as your superiors have decided are best for your well-being. Doesn't seem very libertarian. Promoting software under the MIT, BSD or similar licenses sure seems like it would be the more libertarian stance.

by swebs 6y ago

krapp 6y ago

It's ironic that you're claiming free software isn't compatible with authoritarianism while suggesting that anyone who doesn't support the Great Leader isn't welcome and should voluntarily purge themselves from the movement.

toomim 6y ago
RMS doesn't lead with authoritarianism. You're assuming that anyone who is in a position of leadership is an "authoritarian," but that's not what the word means.
- krapp 6y ago
  You're purposely misinterpreting my comment, so this will be my only reply to you here. The authoritarianism is in the community, and the opinion held by many within it that one cannot be a member of the Free Software community and oppose the leadership of Richard Stallman or be critical of his behavior. Everyone who does so is regarded as a traitor, a shill working for the interests of the proprietary software establishment or a SJW spreading lies and false claims. I've already seen several comments calling for the removal of "the SJWs" from the movement, and praise for the community's intolerance of any view outside of its political orthodoxy.
swebs 6y ago
That's a real stretch. "Voluntarily" and "authoritarianism" are opposites. But that's beside the point. I'm not saying anyone is unwelcome or should leave. In fact, I think it would be best if people could coexist in the same organization while agreeing to disagree. But the fact of the matter is that these people already resigning. So instead of just doing nothing after they resign or working for some company, they should create their own group that's more in line with their ideals.

tssva 6y ago

The FSF promoting the use of only GPL licenses seems to indicate their version of freedom to be you should have freedom as long as you follow these specific rules we as your superiors have decided are best for your well-being. Doesn't seem very libertarian. Promoting software under the MIT, BSD or similar licenses sure seems like it would be the more libertarian stance.