4 ms·

I mean, the OSI is filled with people who work for proprietary companies, and open source was made to make free software enterprise. And the Linux Foundation h

by caslon 6y ago

I mean, the OSI is filled with people who work for proprietary companies, and open source was made to make free software enterprise. And the Linux Foundation has a bunch of people from companies that also promote largely proprietary technologies... So...yeah. The FSF is the last beacon of morality here, in its own strange, beady-eyed way. I'm not a huge fan of Stallman, myself (I have had many arguments with him), but the people opposing him are pretty awful people largely pushing proprietary software, actually.

geofft 6y ago
> I mean, the OSI is filled with people who work for proprietary companies So is GNU, though. For instance, https://gcc.gnu.org/steering.html https://gcc.gnu.org/steering.html identifies the affiliations of most of the GCC steering committee, and they're generally proprietary companies. (Several work for Red Hat, a subsidiary of IBM.) Also, if we're going to claim that working for a proprietary-software company means you're not a member of the free software movement, the movement is very small indeed. > and open source was made to make free software enterprise. That may be the case, but the FSF has a long history of saying that you can work on free software for profit, too. Frankly, that's why the FSF exists separate from the GNU project - to be a place that you can order physical media with GNU software from and expense it. > but the people opposing him are pretty awful people largely pushing proprietary software, actually This is untrue of the authors of the open letter - you should look at their stated positions on free and proprietary software. (It might be true of some of the signatories, of course.)
- caslon 6y ago
  > So is GNU, though. For instance, https://gcc.gnu.org/steering.html https://gcc.gnu.org/steering.html identifies the affiliations of most of the GCC steering committee, and they're generally proprietary companies. (Several work for Red Hat, a subsidiary of IBM.) Red Hat releases most things under free licenses and as far as I know everyone on the GCC steering committee from Red Hat was there pre-acquisition. That said, I don't love the GCC steering committee for many reasons (many of which admittedly were before most of their appointments). You are right, though, that much of the steering committee for GCC isn't pro-freedom as much as it is pro-convenience (and in the case of SiFive, is a very proprietary company). ...also, the GCC steering committee isn't representative of all of GNU. > Also, if we're going to claim that working for a proprietary-software company means you're not a member of the free software movement, the movement is very small indeed. This is true! I wouldn't say working for one excludes you (though it kind of does), but I would say working for one is incompatible with leading the free software movement or having moral ground to coup it. > That may be the case, but the FSF has a long history of saying that you can work on free software for profit, too. You can! It really is wonderful. Nothing I said conflicts, there. > Frankly, that's why the FSF exists separate from the GNU project - to be a place that you can order physical media with GNU software from and expense it. Half-truth, but close enough. Again, this doesn't conflict with anything I said. > This is untrue of the authors of the open letter - you should look at their stated positions on free and proprietary software. (It might be true of some of the signatories, of course.) That isn't actually true for all of the authors; one I can recall offhand, Garrett works for a company making proprietary software of the worst kind: the type that can kill people. And that's on top of a long history of opinions far more controversial than anything Stallman has been accused of, let alone done (the guy mocked a man who the UN has admitted was being tortured, for example).
  - geofft 6y ago
    Pre-acquisition Red Hat was awfully excited about supporting proprietary software whose intended purpose is to kill people: https://www.newsobserver.com/news/business/article213676919.html https://www.newsobserver.com/news/business/article213676919.... My point here is that you can always pick a partitioning and then backsolve ethical principles that support that partitioning. "If you work for a company that sells proprietary software, you're ineligible to be a leading voice in the free software movement" has never been a principle - otherwise IBM and Google would never have had a seat. "If you work for a company that makes software that can kill people, your ethics don't line up with ours" hasn't been a principle either - RMS in fact has advocated for multiple militaries to use free software, see https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/programs-must-not-limit-freedom-to-run.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/programs-must-not-limit-freed... . (Garrett's employer, for what it's worth, makes software that kills people when it breaks, i.e., the better he does his job, the fewer people die. I don't think it's easy to claim that about a military!) The only real established standard is that you advocate that free software is a matter of ethics/morality/liberty and not simply one of convenience, and as far as I can tell, all the coauthors do so.
    - caslon 6y ago
      Thanks for pointing this out, I had forgotten this! Yeah, Red Hat has been rotten for a long time. I don't like it; I think it's been a terrible company for many years; but I do think it's never released non-free software, which was the bit I am mostly concerned about on this particular topic. I do agree that they have no real moral ground to stand on. Forgive me for pointing this out, but given they're one of the organizations that signed the letter... (Though they sort of have more casus belli to than most that signed the letter.) Seriously, though, thank you for pointing this out! I really genuinely appreciate it (and also appreciate that you're civil here). Ah, you stealth-edited; give me a second to read that one. > otherwise IBM and Google would never have had a seat. Google has never had a seat at anything other than OSI, and IBM only purchased one. > "If you work for a company that makes software that can kill people, your ethics don't line up with ours" hasn't been a principle either - Obviously didn't claim this. I pointed out Garrett worked for a proprietary software company that made proprietary software that kills people. Specifically, I noted that this was worse than normal proprietary software, because if you're going to have the lives of others in your hands, they should at least know the rulebook you're playing by. > RMS in fact has advocated for multiple militaries to use free software This is consistent with everything else I've said. I personally dislike militarized forces to the point of being skeptical of most veterans, but proprietary software doesn't make sense for a military any more than using American bombs would make sense for North Korea.
- meribold 6y ago
  That steering committee has condemned RMS as well now.

by caslon 6y ago

geofft 6y ago

> I mean, the OSI is filled with people who work for proprietary companies So is GNU, though. For instance, https://gcc.gnu.org/steering.html https://gcc.gnu.org/steering.html identifies the affiliations of most of the GCC steering committee, and they're generally proprietary companies. (Several work for Red Hat, a subsidiary of IBM.) Also, if we're going to claim that working for a proprietary-software company means you're not a member of the free software movement, the movement is very small indeed. > and open source was made to make free software enterprise. That may be the case, but the FSF has a long history of saying that you can work on free software for profit, too. Frankly, that's why the FSF exists separate from the GNU project - to be a place that you can order physical media with GNU software from and expense it. > but the people opposing him are pretty awful people largely pushing proprietary software, actually This is untrue of the authors of the open letter - you should look at their stated positions on free and proprietary software. (It might be true of some of the signatories, of course.)

caslon 6y ago
> So is GNU, though. For instance, https://gcc.gnu.org/steering.html https://gcc.gnu.org/steering.html identifies the affiliations of most of the GCC steering committee, and they're generally proprietary companies. (Several work for Red Hat, a subsidiary of IBM.) Red Hat releases most things under free licenses and as far as I know everyone on the GCC steering committee from Red Hat was there pre-acquisition. That said, I don't love the GCC steering committee for many reasons (many of which admittedly were before most of their appointments). You are right, though, that much of the steering committee for GCC isn't pro-freedom as much as it is pro-convenience (and in the case of SiFive, is a very proprietary company). ...also, the GCC steering committee isn't representative of all of GNU. > Also, if we're going to claim that working for a proprietary-software company means you're not a member of the free software movement, the movement is very small indeed. This is true! I wouldn't say working for one excludes you (though it kind of does), but I would say working for one is incompatible with leading the free software movement or having moral ground to coup it. > That may be the case, but the FSF has a long history of saying that you can work on free software for profit, too. You can! It really is wonderful. Nothing I said conflicts, there. > Frankly, that's why the FSF exists separate from the GNU project - to be a place that you can order physical media with GNU software from and expense it. Half-truth, but close enough. Again, this doesn't conflict with anything I said. > This is untrue of the authors of the open letter - you should look at their stated positions on free and proprietary software. (It might be true of some of the signatories, of course.) That isn't actually true for all of the authors; one I can recall offhand, Garrett works for a company making proprietary software of the worst kind: the type that can kill people. And that's on top of a long history of opinions far more controversial than anything Stallman has been accused of, let alone done (the guy mocked a man who the UN has admitted was being tortured, for example).
- geofft 6y ago
  Pre-acquisition Red Hat was awfully excited about supporting proprietary software whose intended purpose is to kill people: https://www.newsobserver.com/news/business/article213676919.html https://www.newsobserver.com/news/business/article213676919.... My point here is that you can always pick a partitioning and then backsolve ethical principles that support that partitioning. "If you work for a company that sells proprietary software, you're ineligible to be a leading voice in the free software movement" has never been a principle - otherwise IBM and Google would never have had a seat. "If you work for a company that makes software that can kill people, your ethics don't line up with ours" hasn't been a principle either - RMS in fact has advocated for multiple militaries to use free software, see https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/programs-must-not-limit-freedom-to-run.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/programs-must-not-limit-freed... . (Garrett's employer, for what it's worth, makes software that kills people when it breaks, i.e., the better he does his job, the fewer people die. I don't think it's easy to claim that about a military!) The only real established standard is that you advocate that free software is a matter of ethics/morality/liberty and not simply one of convenience, and as far as I can tell, all the coauthors do so.
  - caslon 6y ago
    Thanks for pointing this out, I had forgotten this! Yeah, Red Hat has been rotten for a long time. I don't like it; I think it's been a terrible company for many years; but I do think it's never released non-free software, which was the bit I am mostly concerned about on this particular topic. I do agree that they have no real moral ground to stand on. Forgive me for pointing this out, but given they're one of the organizations that signed the letter... (Though they sort of have more casus belli to than most that signed the letter.) Seriously, though, thank you for pointing this out! I really genuinely appreciate it (and also appreciate that you're civil here). Ah, you stealth-edited; give me a second to read that one. > otherwise IBM and Google would never have had a seat. Google has never had a seat at anything other than OSI, and IBM only purchased one. > "If you work for a company that makes software that can kill people, your ethics don't line up with ours" hasn't been a principle either - Obviously didn't claim this. I pointed out Garrett worked for a proprietary software company that made proprietary software that kills people. Specifically, I noted that this was worse than normal proprietary software, because if you're going to have the lives of others in your hands, they should at least know the rulebook you're playing by. > RMS in fact has advocated for multiple militaries to use free software This is consistent with everything else I've said. I personally dislike militarized forces to the point of being skeptical of most veterans, but proprietary software doesn't make sense for a military any more than using American bombs would make sense for North Korea.
meribold 6y ago
That steering committee has condemned RMS as well now.