5 ms·

The difference between RMS and ESR is one of kind, not one of degree Yes. RMS is concerned with morality, ESR with practicality. Also yes, for some definitio

The difference between RMS and ESR is one of kind, not one of degree Yes. RMS is concerned with morality, ESR with practicality. Also yes, for some definition of “practicality.” The open source movement is just as ardent, just as committed and just as "extreme" as the free software movement, but more successful. I don’t know how to measure commitment, but I agree that the open source movement is more successful in the sense that it is more popular. But what else should we expect? If you take two groups with similar ideas, but one thinks of moral arguments as a way to achieve practical goals, while the other thinks that practical arguments are a way to achieve moral goals, you should almost always expect to see the “practical” group be more successful than the moral group. I see this in school, where students who study how to pass tests get higher marks than students who study the material to learn. I see this in business. I see this in politics. Why would we expect to see anything else in software? no, we don't need RMS I think that’s a fine statement to make if you qualify who “we” are. If you mean people concerned with practical objectives, you may be right. I caution against rhetoric that might be mistaken for suggesting that your point of view encompasses everyone reading your arguments.

cwp 14y ago
I think that’s a fine statement to make if you qualify who “we” are. If you mean people concerned with practical objectives, you may be right. I caution against rhetoric that might be mistaken for suggesting that your point of view encompasses everyone reading your arguments. Fair point. That line was actually meant as a direct response to cstross's "We need people like RMS," but I botched the parallel construction. The "we" there should be the same "we" that cstross was talking about. one thinks of moral arguments as a way to achieve practical goals, while the other thinks that practical arguments are a way to achieve moral goals That's an interesting way to think about it, but for me at least, neither of those characterizations is accurate. I think practical arguments are a way to achieve practical goals. I oppose the philosophy of the FSF, because AFAICT, they're making moral arguments to achieve moral goals. You seem to consider morality and practicality to be two sides of the same coin, where I see them as quite separate. What I dislike about the RMS position is that it seems to consider tinkering, and perhaps geek culture in general, as inherently good and goals in their own right. I take a more utilitarian view: tinkering is good insofar we benefit from the results. (That "we" is very broad by they way. Users of technology and humanity in general.) [turns out I can still edit the gp, so I fixed that line]
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- icebraining 14y ago
  What I dislike about the RMS position is that it seems to consider tinkering, and perhaps geek culture in general, as inherently good and goals in their own right. I take a more utilitarian view: tinkering is good insofar we benefit from the results. I disagree; his position, as I perceive it, is that having the right to tinker is inherently good, not so much tinkering itself. Much like many of us consider Free Speech to be inherently good, even if we find some speech abominable. And the advantages of Free Software aren't limited to tinkering, of course.
  - cwp 14y ago
    Sure. The right to tinker is required for actual tinkering, and a right that's never exercised is pointless. Regardless, I don't consider the right to tinker an end in its self. The pleasure of tinkering is utterly unimportant compared with the good that a tinkerers work can bring into the world. As for freedom of speech, I think the analogy is flawed. The technology equivalent of speech is invention, and the freedom to invent doesn't require anything like the GPL. The freedom to tinker is more like the freedom to copyedit somebody else's work. And hey, I'm for it! Remix culture is great stuff. But it's not in the same league as freedom of speech. When it comes right down to it, though, I don't consider freedom of speech an end in its self either. The value of free speech is the sort of society it produces, not the speech its self. I favour limits to speech when the effect of that speech is not a net good to society. Now, those situations are few and far between, but they do exist. Yelling "fire" and all that; our legal system has a long and nuanced tradition of weighing the issue in various situations. The point is that dogma and fanaticism are counterproductive, whatever your goals are. The FSF is certainly not alone in this.
    - icebraining 14y ago
      Sure. The right to tinker is required for actual tinkering, and a right that's never exercised is pointless. Regardless, I don't consider the right to tinker an end in its self. The pleasure of tinkering is utterly unimportant compared with the good that a tinkerers work can bring into the world. But who said anything about the pleasure of tinkering? I don't think that was ever RMS' position. As for freedom of speech, I think the analogy is flawed. The technology equivalent of speech is invention, and the freedom to invent doesn't require anything like the GPL. The freedom to tinker is more like the freedom to copyedit somebody else's work. And hey, I'm for it! Remix culture is great stuff. But it's not in the same league as freedom of speech. That was specifically about X vs having the right to do X; I didn't meant to make a broad comparison between them. Subjects in analogies aren't supposed to map 1:1 in everything. When it comes right down to it, though, I don't consider freedom of speech an end in its self either. The value of free speech is the sort of society it produces, not the speech its self. I favour limits to speech when the effect of that speech is not a net good to society. Now, those situations are few and far between, but they do exist. Yelling "fire" and all that; our legal system has a long and nuanced tradition of weighing the issue in various situations. But "fire" is an exception mostly because Free Speech is supposed to protect political speech and we can say in a mostly objectively way that "fire" doesn't fit. But what about political speeches that are arguably not a net good to society, like e.g. calls to pointless (in your opinion) wars? Should they be banned? If not, why not, and aren't you contradicting yourself? The point is that dogma and fanaticism are counterproductive, whatever your goals are. The FSF is certainly not alone in this. Another word might be idealism.
einhverfr 14y ago
I go back and forth on how helpful RMS is. On one hand, where would we be without the GCC? This is something he helped get going. On the other, I see him as someone who misinterprets a bunch of things because it is convenient for him politically to do so. The two examples are what happens when you dynamically link GPL software to proprietary software (static linking is arguably a bigger deal with the GPL v3 than the GPL v2), and taking extreme positions as to what the GPL versions require of developers bridging proprietary and GPL software. The second is his view of what the BSD license allows and he makes false claims here he bases his view that the BSD and GPL v3 licenses are compatible on. The BSD license probably does not allow sublicensing in the opinion of most lawyers I have talked to (Eben Moglen being the sole exception!) and so if relicensing/sublicensing is a requirement for compatibility with the GPL v3, the BSD license is incompatible but the MIT license is compatible. Last I discussed this with Moglen he seemed to think it was safe just because the BSD author would lack standing or on other technical grounds. Every other lawyer I have talked to says "don't assume it's safe to take BSD code and add license restrictions without first making significant changes" (this is also the Software Freedom Law Center's official recommendation also) something the GPL v3 explicitly requires. (The counter-argument is that everyone involved in drafting the GPL v3 believed it to be compatible with the BSD license and this was a goal so BSD compatibility should be read into the license. This was what Richard Fontana argued when I brought this up on the OSI email lists). I actually still use the GPL v2 and BSD licenses almost exclusively, and RMS is a big part of the reason I won't consider upgrading to the GPL v3.

cwp 14y ago

I think that’s a fine statement to make if you qualify who “we” are. If you mean people concerned with practical objectives, you may be right. I caution against rhetoric that might be mistaken for suggesting that your point of view encompasses everyone reading your arguments. Fair point. That line was actually meant as a direct response to cstross's "We need people like RMS," but I botched the parallel construction. The "we" there should be the same "we" that cstross was talking about. one thinks of moral arguments as a way to achieve practical goals, while the other thinks that practical arguments are a way to achieve moral goals That's an interesting way to think about it, but for me at least, neither of those characterizations is accurate. I think practical arguments are a way to achieve practical goals. I oppose the philosophy of the FSF, because AFAICT, they're making moral arguments to achieve moral goals. You seem to consider morality and practicality to be two sides of the same coin, where I see them as quite separate. What I dislike about the RMS position is that it seems to consider tinkering, and perhaps geek culture in general, as inherently good and goals in their own right. I take a more utilitarian view: tinkering is good insofar we benefit from the results. (That "we" is very broad by they way. Users of technology and humanity in general.) [turns out I can still edit the gp, so I fixed that line]

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
icebraining 14y ago
What I dislike about the RMS position is that it seems to consider tinkering, and perhaps geek culture in general, as inherently good and goals in their own right. I take a more utilitarian view: tinkering is good insofar we benefit from the results. I disagree; his position, as I perceive it, is that having the right to tinker is inherently good, not so much tinkering itself. Much like many of us consider Free Speech to be inherently good, even if we find some speech abominable. And the advantages of Free Software aren't limited to tinkering, of course.
- cwp 14y ago
  Sure. The right to tinker is required for actual tinkering, and a right that's never exercised is pointless. Regardless, I don't consider the right to tinker an end in its self. The pleasure of tinkering is utterly unimportant compared with the good that a tinkerers work can bring into the world. As for freedom of speech, I think the analogy is flawed. The technology equivalent of speech is invention, and the freedom to invent doesn't require anything like the GPL. The freedom to tinker is more like the freedom to copyedit somebody else's work. And hey, I'm for it! Remix culture is great stuff. But it's not in the same league as freedom of speech. When it comes right down to it, though, I don't consider freedom of speech an end in its self either. The value of free speech is the sort of society it produces, not the speech its self. I favour limits to speech when the effect of that speech is not a net good to society. Now, those situations are few and far between, but they do exist. Yelling "fire" and all that; our legal system has a long and nuanced tradition of weighing the issue in various situations. The point is that dogma and fanaticism are counterproductive, whatever your goals are. The FSF is certainly not alone in this.
  - icebraining 14y ago
    Sure. The right to tinker is required for actual tinkering, and a right that's never exercised is pointless. Regardless, I don't consider the right to tinker an end in its self. The pleasure of tinkering is utterly unimportant compared with the good that a tinkerers work can bring into the world. But who said anything about the pleasure of tinkering? I don't think that was ever RMS' position. As for freedom of speech, I think the analogy is flawed. The technology equivalent of speech is invention, and the freedom to invent doesn't require anything like the GPL. The freedom to tinker is more like the freedom to copyedit somebody else's work. And hey, I'm for it! Remix culture is great stuff. But it's not in the same league as freedom of speech. That was specifically about X vs having the right to do X; I didn't meant to make a broad comparison between them. Subjects in analogies aren't supposed to map 1:1 in everything. When it comes right down to it, though, I don't consider freedom of speech an end in its self either. The value of free speech is the sort of society it produces, not the speech its self. I favour limits to speech when the effect of that speech is not a net good to society. Now, those situations are few and far between, but they do exist. Yelling "fire" and all that; our legal system has a long and nuanced tradition of weighing the issue in various situations. But "fire" is an exception mostly because Free Speech is supposed to protect political speech and we can say in a mostly objectively way that "fire" doesn't fit. But what about political speeches that are arguably not a net good to society, like e.g. calls to pointless (in your opinion) wars? Should they be banned? If not, why not, and aren't you contradicting yourself? The point is that dogma and fanaticism are counterproductive, whatever your goals are. The FSF is certainly not alone in this. Another word might be idealism.

einhverfr 14y ago

I go back and forth on how helpful RMS is. On one hand, where would we be without the GCC? This is something he helped get going. On the other, I see him as someone who misinterprets a bunch of things because it is convenient for him politically to do so. The two examples are what happens when you dynamically link GPL software to proprietary software (static linking is arguably a bigger deal with the GPL v3 than the GPL v2), and taking extreme positions as to what the GPL versions require of developers bridging proprietary and GPL software. The second is his view of what the BSD license allows and he makes false claims here he bases his view that the BSD and GPL v3 licenses are compatible on. The BSD license probably does not allow sublicensing in the opinion of most lawyers I have talked to (Eben Moglen being the sole exception!) and so if relicensing/sublicensing is a requirement for compatibility with the GPL v3, the BSD license is incompatible but the MIT license is compatible. Last I discussed this with Moglen he seemed to think it was safe just because the BSD author would lack standing or on other technical grounds. Every other lawyer I have talked to says "don't assume it's safe to take BSD code and add license restrictions without first making significant changes" (this is also the Software Freedom Law Center's official recommendation also) something the GPL v3 explicitly requires. (The counter-argument is that everyone involved in drafting the GPL v3 believed it to be compatible with the BSD license and this was a goal so BSD compatibility should be read into the license. This was what Richard Fontana argued when I brought this up on the OSI email lists). I actually still use the GPL v2 and BSD licenses almost exclusively, and RMS is a big part of the reason I won't consider upgrading to the GPL v3.