2 ms·

IMO the essay you linked to is ethically stunted and not particularly serious. For example, it wants to hold independent the development of software and the ow

by jmull 4y ago

IMO the essay you linked to is ethically stunted and not particularly serious. For example, it wants to hold independent the development of software and the ownership of software, which is pointless since they are not independent. Software doesn't necessarily get developed whether or not anyone is paid to do it, and people don't necessarily pay for software to be written (or anything else) without having some control over the the software (or anything else). It seems nice that software is written that is only for free distribution, but it seems dead wrong that those should be the only terms under which software is written. RHS thinks I don't have the right to trade my own time -- my own time -- simply because what I do with that time is write software. IMO, it's a fundamental right to be able to come to come to terms with another person and there's no special exception because written code is part of the exchange.

kragen 4y ago
Essentially nothing you say or imply in your comment about the essay I linked is correct. I've often observed this phenomenon when people are talking about issues they find upsetting, but the degree of disregard for veracity in your comment is an especially astonishing example. I was tempted to write a rebutting comment explaining in detail why each of the claims and implicit claims in your comment about what this essay says is false — in most cases, the diametrical opposite of the truth — but that would be far too much work; you will have to be satisfied with this blanket dismissal. But the essay is quite clearly written, so anyone who bothers to read it will easily be able to recognize your falsehoods. If you want to argue against Stallman's ideas, I'd like to suggest that, even if you're willing to sacrifice your own reputation to do so, employing such astounding levels of mendacity may not work to your advantage.

by jmull 4y ago

kragen 4y ago

Essentially nothing you say or imply in your comment about the essay I linked is correct. I've often observed this phenomenon when people are talking about issues they find upsetting, but the degree of disregard for veracity in your comment is an especially astonishing example. I was tempted to write a rebutting comment explaining in detail why each of the claims and implicit claims in your comment about what this essay says is false — in most cases, the diametrical opposite of the truth — but that would be far too much work; you will have to be satisfied with this blanket dismissal. But the essay is quite clearly written, so anyone who bothers to read it will easily be able to recognize your falsehoods. If you want to argue against Stallman's ideas, I'd like to suggest that, even if you're willing to sacrifice your own reputation to do so, employing such astounding levels of mendacity may not work to your advantage.