3 ms·

> I believe in free software but I do not like GNU and FSF zealotry I don't believe you believe in free software. > Free software (or libre software)[1][2] is

> I believe in free software but I do not like GNU and FSF zealotry I don't believe you believe in free software. > Free software (or libre software)[1][2] is computer software distributed under terms that allow users to run the software for any purpose as well as to study, change, and distribute it and any adapted versions. If you believe in that, how can you consider what the FSF stands for 'zealotry'? They are simply standing by their principles, which has undoubtedly pushed forward the state of the art in software over decades.

cheeze 5y ago
> I don't believe you believe in free software. Serious question - why should OP of that comment care at all? This is the equivalent of a deeply religious person saying "I don't think you're very Christian" Ok, that's fine. Good for you?
warp 5y ago
I believe the world would be a better place if all software was free, and I think that is a worthy goal to be pursuing. In that sense, I believe in free software. I don't think the FSF as an organization is very effective in working toward that goal or promoting that goal. They're pushing away too many people and organizations who could've been their allies.
- metroholografix 5y ago
  On the contrary, I think they've been very effective in avoiding being corrupted and destroyed from within (as is the norm). It takes a super strong moral foundation to stand firm against the onslaught of corporate commoditization, and the FSF has managed to do it. I know RMS rubs some folks the wrong way, but he's been not only extremely prescient and decades ahead of his time, but THE main reason that the FSF has endured where so many others have failed. It's a common saying that the FSF is old or promotes an aging philosophy that's not current with the times, usually meant as a stepping stone to some sort of modernization not only in procedures but principles, which is exactly how other projects have been destroyed. Popular appeal may wax or wane, but there can be absolutely no concession in the core philosophy of the FSF. Keep broadcasting an uncorrupted message, and let people tune in [1]. RMS fully understands this and it'll be a sad day when/if he's replaced by someone who doesn't. [1] A look at the -healthy and invigorated by newcomers- Emacs community is testament that the state of affairs is not dire.
  - Beltalowda 5y ago
    On the other hand, X would have been GPL and not MIT if Stallman hadn't been ranting to the X developers at MIT in the 80s and generally leaving a bad impression. See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cj02_UeUnGQ&t=1705s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cj02_UeUnGQ&t=1705s
- gorjusborg 5y ago
  > I don't think the FSF as an organization is very effective in working toward that goal or promoting that goal. Okay, I can understand that line of reasoning, and I agree to a certain extent. The FSF is aging, and their philosophy is not playing well anymore with the public.
  - guilhas 5y ago
    Anyone can start a new free software organization if they think they can improve on it

cheeze 5y ago

> I don't believe you believe in free software. Serious question - why should OP of that comment care at all? This is the equivalent of a deeply religious person saying "I don't think you're very Christian" Ok, that's fine. Good for you?

warp 5y ago

I believe the world would be a better place if all software was free, and I think that is a worthy goal to be pursuing. In that sense, I believe in free software. I don't think the FSF as an organization is very effective in working toward that goal or promoting that goal. They're pushing away too many people and organizations who could've been their allies.

metroholografix 5y ago
On the contrary, I think they've been very effective in avoiding being corrupted and destroyed from within (as is the norm). It takes a super strong moral foundation to stand firm against the onslaught of corporate commoditization, and the FSF has managed to do it. I know RMS rubs some folks the wrong way, but he's been not only extremely prescient and decades ahead of his time, but THE main reason that the FSF has endured where so many others have failed. It's a common saying that the FSF is old or promotes an aging philosophy that's not current with the times, usually meant as a stepping stone to some sort of modernization not only in procedures but principles, which is exactly how other projects have been destroyed. Popular appeal may wax or wane, but there can be absolutely no concession in the core philosophy of the FSF. Keep broadcasting an uncorrupted message, and let people tune in [1]. RMS fully understands this and it'll be a sad day when/if he's replaced by someone who doesn't. [1] A look at the -healthy and invigorated by newcomers- Emacs community is testament that the state of affairs is not dire.
- Beltalowda 5y ago
  On the other hand, X would have been GPL and not MIT if Stallman hadn't been ranting to the X developers at MIT in the 80s and generally leaving a bad impression. See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cj02_UeUnGQ&t=1705s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cj02_UeUnGQ&t=1705s
gorjusborg 5y ago
> I don't think the FSF as an organization is very effective in working toward that goal or promoting that goal. Okay, I can understand that line of reasoning, and I agree to a certain extent. The FSF is aging, and their philosophy is not playing well anymore with the public.
- guilhas 5y ago
  Anyone can start a new free software organization if they think they can improve on it