3 ms·

That's just it, he spoke about free software, not these larger issues. And getting people to adopt free software is an orthogonal issue. Even if GPL software h

That's just it, he spoke about free software, not these larger issues. And getting people to adopt free software is an orthogonal issue. Even if GPL software had 99% market share in the US, and everyone in the country were running the same kind of computer as Stallman, the government could still step in and pass all kinds of draconian laws. Getting regular people to adopt the GPL ethos is fine, but if the ethos doesn't permeate government as well, Stallman might as well be touring around promoting the Spice Girls for all governments will be prevented from doing intrusive things.

tjr 15y ago
Richard speaks about more than just free software per se; recent speeches include Copyright vs Community, A Free Digital Society, and The Danger of Software Patents.
rjbond3rd 15y ago
> That's just it, he spoke about free software, not these larger issues... What's larger than freedom?
- jonhendry 15y ago
  There are many freedoms. I suspect Stallman would be happy if he achieved all his free software goals, even if he lost freedoms that most other people consider more important.
  - tankenmate 15y ago
    I think you completely misunderstand RMS then, I think you would find that he would argue that all freedoms are necessary and worth fighting for. In many speeches I have heard him give he has said that he could fight for other freedoms but the freedom he could do the best job of fighting for are software freedoms. I would suggest you read more of RMS's work and listen to more of his talks.
    - jiggy2011 15y ago
      Yes, exactly. Let's assume Stallman had qualified as a Medical Doctor rather than a Computer Programmer. Perhaps he would be making the same argument about pharmaceutical patents?
super_mario 15y ago
Are you seriously expecting Stallman or any one person to "fight" the government and prevent it from passing some draconian law. You seem to thoroughly misunderstand how a modern democracy operates. It's up to the people to prevent a government like that by not electing politicians that have draconian views on the subject. And the only way people can ever do that is if they are aware of all the issues. And Richard is doing a lot to make us all aware of the issues. In my mind he is doing all he can do, and at the right level of involvement, where he has the most know how to influence the minds of "regular" people.
- jonhendry 15y ago
  Compare the FSF to the EFF.
  - stfp 15y ago
    They do different things? That are both needed and important?
noibl 15y ago
The point is to make such laws unworkable through practical measures, not to generate political anger in the uncertain hope that that will balance the efforts of proprietorial lobbyists and state security extremists indefinitely.

tjr 15y ago

Richard speaks about more than just free software per se; recent speeches include Copyright vs Community, A Free Digital Society, and The Danger of Software Patents.

rjbond3rd 15y ago

> That's just it, he spoke about free software, not these larger issues... What's larger than freedom?

jonhendry 15y ago
There are many freedoms. I suspect Stallman would be happy if he achieved all his free software goals, even if he lost freedoms that most other people consider more important.
- tankenmate 15y ago
  I think you completely misunderstand RMS then, I think you would find that he would argue that all freedoms are necessary and worth fighting for. In many speeches I have heard him give he has said that he could fight for other freedoms but the freedom he could do the best job of fighting for are software freedoms. I would suggest you read more of RMS's work and listen to more of his talks.
  - jiggy2011 15y ago
    Yes, exactly. Let's assume Stallman had qualified as a Medical Doctor rather than a Computer Programmer. Perhaps he would be making the same argument about pharmaceutical patents?

super_mario 15y ago

Are you seriously expecting Stallman or any one person to "fight" the government and prevent it from passing some draconian law. You seem to thoroughly misunderstand how a modern democracy operates. It's up to the people to prevent a government like that by not electing politicians that have draconian views on the subject. And the only way people can ever do that is if they are aware of all the issues. And Richard is doing a lot to make us all aware of the issues. In my mind he is doing all he can do, and at the right level of involvement, where he has the most know how to influence the minds of "regular" people.

jonhendry 15y ago
Compare the FSF to the EFF.
- stfp 15y ago
  They do different things? That are both needed and important?

noibl 15y ago

The point is to make such laws unworkable through practical measures, not to generate political anger in the uncertain hope that that will balance the efforts of proprietorial lobbyists and state security extremists indefinitely.