3 ms·

Actually, from my perspective as a contracts lawyer, this rider is far from what I would call clear. Like the GPL, it's a helpful document, and cheerfully neur

Actually, from my perspective as a contracts lawyer, this rider is far from what I would call clear. Like the GPL, it's a helpful document, and cheerfully neurotic, but it leaves lots of room for dispute and confusion. Specificity != clarity. Likewise, verbosity is not an indicator of a good contract. To the contrary.

Udo 15y ago
That might be because as a lawyer you're biased to prefer form over intent. I'm sorry if this sounds nasty, it's not supposed to be though. People are different. GNU/Stallman goes to great lengths to describe where he is coming from so the reader can understand what the motivations behind his points are. It's not supposed to be a watertight contract between two parties with opposing agendas who are trying to outmaneuver each other at a soulless semantics game. Instead, the rider is supposed to enable people who already have friendly intentions to understand (and interpolate!) what is important to their guest.
- sunchild 15y ago
  At the end of the day, a contract doesn't replace a relationship. It just puts everyone on notice about what's intended. Most of the rider is crystal clear. It just gets hard to follow in areas such as the following: A supply of tea with milk and sugar would be nice. If it is tea I really like, I like it without milk and sugar. With milk and sugar, any kind of tea is fine. I always bring tea bags with me, so if we use my tea bags, I will certainly like that tea without milk or sugar. If I am quite sleepy, I would like two cans or small bottles of non-diet Pepsi. (I dislike the taste of coke, and of all diet soda; also, there is an international boycott of the Coca Cola company for killing union organizers in Colombia and Guatemala; see killercoke.org.) However, if I am not very sleepy, I won't want Pepsi, because it is better if I don't drink so much sugar. In more concise (and readable) form: (1) milk and sugar is required, although he may not use it, and (2) Pepsi, not Coke.
  - philwelch 15y ago
    Would it really be Stallman without long moral justifications of every clause?
    - sunchild 15y ago
      The problem with unerring dedication to a moral cause is that life always manages to present the most absurd edge cases. You start with someone casually asking 'Coke or Pepsi?' and your knee-jerk response is something about murdered workers in a South American jungle. There's nothing wrong with moralizing in every context, but it's the opposite of fun/pleasant to be around. Everything in life is a tradeoff. Myself, I have a hard time being fiercely moralistic about anything, because Moralizers often do more harm than good. Necessarily, they purport to know the truth better than others – a conceit that I can't get behind.
      - nodata 15y ago
        But adding that extra information made at least me remember. Besides, I like the idea of buying/not buying a company's products based on whether you support them or not.

Udo 15y ago

That might be because as a lawyer you're biased to prefer form over intent. I'm sorry if this sounds nasty, it's not supposed to be though. People are different. GNU/Stallman goes to great lengths to describe where he is coming from so the reader can understand what the motivations behind his points are. It's not supposed to be a watertight contract between two parties with opposing agendas who are trying to outmaneuver each other at a soulless semantics game. Instead, the rider is supposed to enable people who already have friendly intentions to understand (and interpolate!) what is important to their guest.

sunchild 15y ago
At the end of the day, a contract doesn't replace a relationship. It just puts everyone on notice about what's intended. Most of the rider is crystal clear. It just gets hard to follow in areas such as the following: A supply of tea with milk and sugar would be nice. If it is tea I really like, I like it without milk and sugar. With milk and sugar, any kind of tea is fine. I always bring tea bags with me, so if we use my tea bags, I will certainly like that tea without milk or sugar. If I am quite sleepy, I would like two cans or small bottles of non-diet Pepsi. (I dislike the taste of coke, and of all diet soda; also, there is an international boycott of the Coca Cola company for killing union organizers in Colombia and Guatemala; see killercoke.org.) However, if I am not very sleepy, I won't want Pepsi, because it is better if I don't drink so much sugar. In more concise (and readable) form: (1) milk and sugar is required, although he may not use it, and (2) Pepsi, not Coke.
- philwelch 15y ago
  Would it really be Stallman without long moral justifications of every clause?
  - sunchild 15y ago
    The problem with unerring dedication to a moral cause is that life always manages to present the most absurd edge cases. You start with someone casually asking 'Coke or Pepsi?' and your knee-jerk response is something about murdered workers in a South American jungle. There's nothing wrong with moralizing in every context, but it's the opposite of fun/pleasant to be around. Everything in life is a tradeoff. Myself, I have a hard time being fiercely moralistic about anything, because Moralizers often do more harm than good. Necessarily, they purport to know the truth better than others – a conceit that I can't get behind.
    - nodata 15y ago
      But adding that extra information made at least me remember. Besides, I like the idea of buying/not buying a company's products based on whether you support them or not.