3 ms·

People seem to forget he is an idealist. If he thinks free software is the most important social issue of our time, don't be surprised his other beliefs flow f

by cbs 15y ago

People seem to forget he is an idealist. If he thinks free software is the most important social issue of our time, don't be surprised his other beliefs flow from it. I think his role as an uncompromising figure is important to maintain the shape of the overton window. I wouldn't want him to be anything else. You don't have to agree with him (he is ridiculously idealistic), but his position provides us a lenses to analyze our own. To understand what we want software to be, our ability to affect that, the constraints practicality places on that, and how we reconcile the two. There is always going to be a line where we say "fuck it, I need money", so poke around and discover yourself rather than taking the quick route and just writing off everything you're not already involved with as someone else's problem. Hopefully, on the other end of that process, we have discovered enough about our stance on software that we're above a banal characterization of free software like: Good at making software that helps people and brings joy to others? Don’t do it.

mhurron 15y ago
He's not an idealist, he is an ideologue. He will not even consider a compromise or gradual moves to his position. His position is unquestionably right and just and everyone who disagrees or does otherwise is wrong and undeniably evil. He is no different than a religious zealot. He just worships a different god. The only lens he provides is one for us to say 'hell, at least I'm not that crazy.'
- javascriptlol 15y ago
  What a narrow-minded position. RMS is mostly harmless, has brought some good things into this world, and provides a reliable reservoir for a particular set of ideals. Nobody has to agree with him for him to be useful. He's operating within the confines of the law. He is not trampling on anyone's rights. He is worth 100 people who just compromise everything away for short term gain. He's like Ron Paul; kind of a nutter, but a necessary antidote for these times.
- victork2 15y ago
  What a "brilliant, well argumented" point... I am not going to comment the article in itself, I think many people have pointed out in other comment that the guy completely missed the point. But I want to answer this comment: There's a reason why we sometimes shouldn't compromise. A LOT of powers in this world are just waiting for the opportunity to use the good ol' "foot in the door" strategy, especially with free/ open source software. Richard Stall, hate it or love it, with the GPL license has found a way to prevent it. So, in that case there is no compromise, and he's right. There's also a reason with Free/Open source software are now a subject of philosophical research, and your lack of understanding of the forces at play is a good example why some people, the author of this post in question, should stop to look at open source softwares through the "is it conveniant for me?" lens. God, the eternal september syndrom is so strong with Open Source software!...
  - astrodust 15y ago
    That software is getting more free over time has almost nothing to do with imposing licenses like GPL and everything to do with attitude. People want to share. People love to share. It used to be in the days before version control systems, before reliable internetworking, that sharing was hard, tedious, often impractical. The difference between open source and closed source was often a matter of proximity. Now with tools like Github that foster community and encourage people to build things that are free and/or open there has been an explosion of open-source software. People like RMS refuse to acknowledge or even entertain the idea that there needs to be a healthy balance between open and closed. You can be too open just as you can be too closed. His extremist, binary position is not based in reality.
    - greyfade 15y ago
      His ideas aren't realistic, no, but you have to respect a guy that so consistently and fervently holds on to his ideas. Few people are as consistent.
- astrodust 15y ago
  Can we just get rid of him? Set him on a proverbial iceberg and let him chart his own course? As a spokesperson he has an obligation to present himself in a manner that's representative of the movement itself, not of himself. I don't care how busy you are, you can make time to learn how to interact with people better. You can't know how to write a compiler and not be able to figure out simple human interaction. It's obviously a case of priorities and not caring.

by cbs 15y ago

mhurron 15y ago

He's not an idealist, he is an ideologue. He will not even consider a compromise or gradual moves to his position. His position is unquestionably right and just and everyone who disagrees or does otherwise is wrong and undeniably evil. He is no different than a religious zealot. He just worships a different god. The only lens he provides is one for us to say 'hell, at least I'm not that crazy.'

javascriptlol 15y ago
What a narrow-minded position. RMS is mostly harmless, has brought some good things into this world, and provides a reliable reservoir for a particular set of ideals. Nobody has to agree with him for him to be useful. He's operating within the confines of the law. He is not trampling on anyone's rights. He is worth 100 people who just compromise everything away for short term gain. He's like Ron Paul; kind of a nutter, but a necessary antidote for these times.
victork2 15y ago
What a "brilliant, well argumented" point... I am not going to comment the article in itself, I think many people have pointed out in other comment that the guy completely missed the point. But I want to answer this comment: There's a reason why we sometimes shouldn't compromise. A LOT of powers in this world are just waiting for the opportunity to use the good ol' "foot in the door" strategy, especially with free/ open source software. Richard Stall, hate it or love it, with the GPL license has found a way to prevent it. So, in that case there is no compromise, and he's right. There's also a reason with Free/Open source software are now a subject of philosophical research, and your lack of understanding of the forces at play is a good example why some people, the author of this post in question, should stop to look at open source softwares through the "is it conveniant for me?" lens. God, the eternal september syndrom is so strong with Open Source software!...
- astrodust 15y ago
  That software is getting more free over time has almost nothing to do with imposing licenses like GPL and everything to do with attitude. People want to share. People love to share. It used to be in the days before version control systems, before reliable internetworking, that sharing was hard, tedious, often impractical. The difference between open source and closed source was often a matter of proximity. Now with tools like Github that foster community and encourage people to build things that are free and/or open there has been an explosion of open-source software. People like RMS refuse to acknowledge or even entertain the idea that there needs to be a healthy balance between open and closed. You can be too open just as you can be too closed. His extremist, binary position is not based in reality.
  - greyfade 15y ago
    His ideas aren't realistic, no, but you have to respect a guy that so consistently and fervently holds on to his ideas. Few people are as consistent.
astrodust 15y ago
Can we just get rid of him? Set him on a proverbial iceberg and let him chart his own course? As a spokesperson he has an obligation to present himself in a manner that's representative of the movement itself, not of himself. I don't care how busy you are, you can make time to learn how to interact with people better. You can't know how to write a compiler and not be able to figure out simple human interaction. It's obviously a case of priorities and not caring.