5 ms·

>So you don’t like their political positions? I don't like that they're pushing political positions on me that have nothing to do with free software, as define

>So you don’t like their political positions? I don't like that they're pushing political positions on me that have nothing to do with free software, as defined by RMS . It's not unreasonable for them to want to exclude people who don't share their political views, but my hope is that another, more inclusive (in the real sense) group will outcompete them. There are many people who could make great contributions to free software, but who don't share your political views. If human flourishing is our goal, why should we not accept their contributions? The software speaks for itself. >Free software has always had a socialist bend. In what way?

apantel 2y ago
RMS was politically and ideologically pushy, and an activist. The GPL is very opinionated and pushy. Its basic design was to use copyright / contract law to push an ideology on adjacent software. People who are drawn to RMS (who have actually heard him speak in his own voice) are most likely more political and ideological, and left-leaning, than the average person, whether they realize it or not, because he was those things intensely and acutely. I’m personally extremely off-put by him, and without being able to qualify exactly why, I can tell you that same part of me is off-put by socialism. RMS and socialism have the same smell. It’s the smell of only seeing the bad in so-called capitalism, capitalists, the profit motive, companies, business people, etc, when so much of the wealth of our time was produced by those very people / things. Like, wake up — the vast majority of these amazing technologies and products were developed and brought to mass market in highly-capitalist countries, largely fueled by the profit motive (though of course research institutions played a huge role). AT&T, IBM, Xerox, HP, the companies that built this world of software and hardware that RMS wants to be ‘free’, were… companies. What am I trying to say… I think most of the time it takes a company and capitalism and a profit motive to lay the golden egg, as in produce and bring to mass market an innovation that raises living standards and extends human potential. This doesn’t mean companies do no wrong. They do tremendous wrong and need to be regulated. But I think the best approach is one of embracing and reforming capitalism, rather than opposing it.
- TylerLives 2y ago
  To me the issue isn't that they're left leaning, but that they're using free software movement to push unrelated political ideas on everyone. I have mixed feelings about GPL, but at least it's closely related to the original idea of free software, and there are other licenses. Their post is using vague language that can refer to anything. Whether they realize it or not, this is what they're doing - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38279543 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38279543
- binary132 2y ago
  Which corporation and which profit motive gave us Linux?
  - dartos 2y ago
    Honestly, the Linux foundation donations and red hat gave you Linux as it is today. The usable, rock solid, trustworthy OS is not the initial version that Linus released.
  - apantel 2y ago
    I said “most of the time” because of Linux, which is an exception that proves the rule. Otherwise you’d list ten major open source successes at the same scale and impact of Linux that everyone knows. But there’s really just the one big big big one, vs countless proprietary big ones that everyone knows and uses.

apantel 2y ago

RMS was politically and ideologically pushy, and an activist. The GPL is very opinionated and pushy. Its basic design was to use copyright / contract law to push an ideology on adjacent software. People who are drawn to RMS (who have actually heard him speak in his own voice) are most likely more political and ideological, and left-leaning, than the average person, whether they realize it or not, because he was those things intensely and acutely. I’m personally extremely off-put by him, and without being able to qualify exactly why, I can tell you that same part of me is off-put by socialism. RMS and socialism have the same smell. It’s the smell of only seeing the bad in so-called capitalism, capitalists, the profit motive, companies, business people, etc, when so much of the wealth of our time was produced by those very people / things. Like, wake up — the vast majority of these amazing technologies and products were developed and brought to mass market in highly-capitalist countries, largely fueled by the profit motive (though of course research institutions played a huge role). AT&T, IBM, Xerox, HP, the companies that built this world of software and hardware that RMS wants to be ‘free’, were… companies. What am I trying to say… I think most of the time it takes a company and capitalism and a profit motive to lay the golden egg, as in produce and bring to mass market an innovation that raises living standards and extends human potential. This doesn’t mean companies do no wrong. They do tremendous wrong and need to be regulated. But I think the best approach is one of embracing and reforming capitalism, rather than opposing it.

TylerLives 2y ago
To me the issue isn't that they're left leaning, but that they're using free software movement to push unrelated political ideas on everyone. I have mixed feelings about GPL, but at least it's closely related to the original idea of free software, and there are other licenses. Their post is using vague language that can refer to anything. Whether they realize it or not, this is what they're doing - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38279543 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38279543
binary132 2y ago
Which corporation and which profit motive gave us Linux?
- dartos 2y ago
  Honestly, the Linux foundation donations and red hat gave you Linux as it is today. The usable, rock solid, trustworthy OS is not the initial version that Linus released.
- apantel 2y ago
  I said “most of the time” because of Linux, which is an exception that proves the rule. Otherwise you’d list ten major open source successes at the same scale and impact of Linux that everyone knows. But there’s really just the one big big big one, vs countless proprietary big ones that everyone knows and uses.