6 ms·

There's no way they'd do that. There's a rift because of LLVM's licensing philosophy: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-01/msg00247.html https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gc

There's no way they'd do that. There's a rift because of LLVM's licensing philosophy: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-01/msg00247.html https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-01/msg00247.html

mwfunk 12y ago
The fact that he even uses the term "adversaries" in this post is disheartening. It's really disappointing that someone who could potentially be such a force for good in the world gets derailed by what is basically tribalism. Two parties can disagree on 99% of their beliefs, yet still find ways to come together on the 1% that they happen to agree on. These parties can work together to each others' mutual benefit, and the world is better for it. But nooooooooo, not RMS. He has to demonize anyone who is not 100% in lockstep with him on everything, to everyone's detriment, and throw his "adversaries" into a trash bin labelled "Others". It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. It's easy to drive people apart in the name of some ideal. It takes actual leadership to drive otherwise separate people together to actually accomplish something. I have wished for so many years that RMS would care enough to provide the latter instead of the usual former.
- mappu 12y ago
  Standard response: rms has probably done more for free software than anyone else in the world. We should be glad at least someone has such uncompromising idealism. Even if it's annoying and inconvenient from time to time.
- derengel 12y ago
  I don't see how he is demonizing anyone by calling them adversaries, the word "adversary" doesn't imply any evil at all, you really are just talking from your personal ego.
- __david__ 12y ago
  > It's easy to drive people apart in the name of some ideal. It takes actual leadership to drive otherwise separate people together to actually accomplish something. Right there is the crux of the matter. RMS is only focused on the ideal. To him, "accomplishing something" is only relevant when the accomplishment is free software that can't be locked away in proprietary codebases. Viewed through that lens, his actions and beliefs have been remarkably consistent for the past 30 years. He really grates on people who don't share his idealism, and he's looked up to by people who do. He can be quite polarizing, to say the least.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. It's easy to drive people apart in the name of some ideal. It takes actual leadership to drive otherwise separate people together to actually accomplish something. The thing is that RMS doesn't want to accomplish something in the generic sense, he wants to accomplish something in the specific sense (and that something is "reduce, and ideally eliminate, the production and distribution of non-free software"). People get frustrated that RMS's actions are incompatible with the specific things they want to acheive, which are often superficially similar goals to RMS's, but different -- very commonly, something like "promote the continued development and distribution of free software", either in general or some particular piece of free software. This isn't really so much ideology getting in the way of shared goals -- its not that RMS lets his ideals for means get in the way of achieving shared goals -- its a fundamental conflict of goals preventing cooperation.
- belorn 12y ago
  What you are calling for is Argument to moderation[1]. Its a common fallacy, which asserts that the truth can be found as a compromise between two opposite positions. Working towards a goal without compromise with those who actively make that goal harder is not wrong. When I have seen RMS labelled people as the "Others", it been when someone has done actions that is direct detriment to free software. If your goal is to build something, and someone else comes with a hammer and start tearing it down, I will give you some permission to be annoyed. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation
Blackthorn 12y ago
This is particularly funny because BSD code can be freely used in GPL'd products, but not the other way around.
- __david__ 12y ago
  Well, it can if you use the GPL on the sum product. :-) Still, I'm not really sure that it's very ironic, since his main beef is companies taking open source code and delivering closed source proprietary binaries to their end users. The whole GNU philosophy is about being guaranteeing that end users (or agents acting on behalf of end users) can always have source code with their binaries. BSD doesn't give you that guarantee. GPL does.
  - JetSpiegel 12y ago
    > The whole GNU philosophy is about being guaranteeing that end users (or agents acting on behalf of end users) can always have source code with their binaries. Nope, that's open source. Free software means that and other freedoms.
    - __david__ 12y ago
      Yep, I'm simplifying since I'm talking about BSD vs GPL and not the philosophical differences of "Open Source" vs "Free Software". What I said was correct in that context.
- belorn 12y ago
  If people could ensure that no one would restrict how others uses the program, having GPL'ed software released under BSD would not be an issue. A bsd project could simply add to the license that people should not use patents, legal threats, or hardware tricks in order to restrict people, and I would see that as equivalent as making the whole work under the GPL. The BSD license itself is not a problem, but people who would abuse the license in order to add restriction is. Thus, BSD products can use GPL code, but they can't enable those who want to add restriction to the BSD product.
bane 12y ago
Remind me again how the GPL preserves my freedom.
- teddyh 12y ago
  > Remind me again how the GPL preserves my freedom. Very well. The governments and states of the world has agreed that any written or creative works shall have owners, called “copyright holders”, who can decide who, if any, other persons shall have the right to make further copies and/or make modifications of those works. This legal arrangement is made with a few specific business models in mind, but those business models originate from the age of printing presses, and this legal arrangement is not conducive to free collaboration and improvements of the works in question, as is the expected norm in, for example, science. Some people who are, for this reason, opposed to this arrangement, noted that this arrangement is, incidentally but necessarily, giving the authors quite a lot of power, and so they constructed the GPL. The GPL is a specific use to which authors can, if they wish, put these powers they have been granted. The GPL is meant to enable the above-mentioned collaborations and improvements without having any other deleterious effects, like making the authors feel like they are being (or could be) exploited. It is quite ingenious, since if you deny the right of authors to apply the GPL, you deny the rights given them by the legal arrangement of copyright. The specific way in which the GPL preserves your freedom depends on the work in question and your role in the situation. As a recipient of a work to which the author(s) have given you a license to use the freedoms granted by the GPL, you are permitted to do many things which would otherwise have been forbidden by copyright law. An an author, the GPL does not make you any more free (since copyright law already gives you absolute power), but the GPL is a tool which you can use to ensure that all users of your works are permitted to collaborate on and improve the work further, which might give you the incentive to produce and release more works.
  - bane 12y ago
    > without having any other deleterious effects And I guess that's the problem isn't it? It does have deleterious effects, but within the narrow definition of "freedom" the GPL uses, those effects are unimportant/ignored. The long-term vision of the GPL does provide a kind of "freedom" along it's specific definition, but strongly denies all other kinds along the way. It's like saying "drinking alcohol is unhealthy" and citing cases of drunk driving and alcoholism as examples of this. And then narrowly defining "healthy" narrowly to include only lifestyles where no alcohol is consumed. Then completely ignoring and even actively working against all the ways in which alcohol can be healthy (and even healthier than no alcohol at all) because it doesn't fit into the narrow definition of "healthy". So when somebody says "remind me how the GNU Public Health Handbook keeps me healthy", when it's brought up that moderate alcohol consumption can increase various health factors and longevity...in other words that alcohol consumption can be "compatible" with health...it's the same kind of scenario here. The GPL's fixation with its specific ideological pure and completely arbitrary definition of "freedom" does not represent all kinds of freedom and that it purports to represent some kind of maximal freedom state is highly disingenuous at best and outright lying at worst. There are certain exercises of freedom that provide for better outcomes within certain criteria than anything the GPL offers and without certain deleterious effects that come from the GPL. But the GPL philosophy either acts like those shouldn't exist or are evil. And I find that highly spurious. There is no such thing as consequence-free freedom. There's always a trade-off of some kind. The GPL is a fiction that comes from a fantasy that this isn't the case and just like any philosophy that relies on ideological purity conveniently ignores the cases where the ideology has negative consequences.

There's no way they'd do that. There's a rift because of LLVM's licensing philosophy: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-01/msg00247.html https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-01/msg00247.html

mwfunk 12y ago

The fact that he even uses the term "adversaries" in this post is disheartening. It's really disappointing that someone who could potentially be such a force for good in the world gets derailed by what is basically tribalism. Two parties can disagree on 99% of their beliefs, yet still find ways to come together on the 1% that they happen to agree on. These parties can work together to each others' mutual benefit, and the world is better for it. But nooooooooo, not RMS. He has to demonize anyone who is not 100% in lockstep with him on everything, to everyone's detriment, and throw his "adversaries" into a trash bin labelled "Others". It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. It's easy to drive people apart in the name of some ideal. It takes actual leadership to drive otherwise separate people together to actually accomplish something. I have wished for so many years that RMS would care enough to provide the latter instead of the usual former.

mappu 12y ago
Standard response: rms has probably done more for free software than anyone else in the world. We should be glad at least someone has such uncompromising idealism. Even if it's annoying and inconvenient from time to time.
derengel 12y ago
I don't see how he is demonizing anyone by calling them adversaries, the word "adversary" doesn't imply any evil at all, you really are just talking from your personal ego.
__david__ 12y ago
> It's easy to drive people apart in the name of some ideal. It takes actual leadership to drive otherwise separate people together to actually accomplish something. Right there is the crux of the matter. RMS is only focused on the ideal. To him, "accomplishing something" is only relevant when the accomplishment is free software that can't be locked away in proprietary codebases. Viewed through that lens, his actions and beliefs have been remarkably consistent for the past 30 years. He really grates on people who don't share his idealism, and he's looked up to by people who do. He can be quite polarizing, to say the least.
dragonwriter 12y ago
> It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. It's easy to drive people apart in the name of some ideal. It takes actual leadership to drive otherwise separate people together to actually accomplish something. The thing is that RMS doesn't want to accomplish something in the generic sense, he wants to accomplish something in the specific sense (and that something is "reduce, and ideally eliminate, the production and distribution of non-free software"). People get frustrated that RMS's actions are incompatible with the specific things they want to acheive, which are often superficially similar goals to RMS's, but different -- very commonly, something like "promote the continued development and distribution of free software", either in general or some particular piece of free software. This isn't really so much ideology getting in the way of shared goals -- its not that RMS lets his ideals for means get in the way of achieving shared goals -- its a fundamental conflict of goals preventing cooperation.
belorn 12y ago
What you are calling for is Argument to moderation[1]. Its a common fallacy, which asserts that the truth can be found as a compromise between two opposite positions. Working towards a goal without compromise with those who actively make that goal harder is not wrong. When I have seen RMS labelled people as the "Others", it been when someone has done actions that is direct detriment to free software. If your goal is to build something, and someone else comes with a hammer and start tearing it down, I will give you some permission to be annoyed. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation

Blackthorn 12y ago

This is particularly funny because BSD code can be freely used in GPL'd products, but not the other way around.

__david__ 12y ago
Well, it can if you use the GPL on the sum product. :-) Still, I'm not really sure that it's very ironic, since his main beef is companies taking open source code and delivering closed source proprietary binaries to their end users. The whole GNU philosophy is about being guaranteeing that end users (or agents acting on behalf of end users) can always have source code with their binaries. BSD doesn't give you that guarantee. GPL does.
- JetSpiegel 12y ago
  > The whole GNU philosophy is about being guaranteeing that end users (or agents acting on behalf of end users) can always have source code with their binaries. Nope, that's open source. Free software means that and other freedoms.
  - __david__ 12y ago
    Yep, I'm simplifying since I'm talking about BSD vs GPL and not the philosophical differences of "Open Source" vs "Free Software". What I said was correct in that context.
belorn 12y ago
If people could ensure that no one would restrict how others uses the program, having GPL'ed software released under BSD would not be an issue. A bsd project could simply add to the license that people should not use patents, legal threats, or hardware tricks in order to restrict people, and I would see that as equivalent as making the whole work under the GPL. The BSD license itself is not a problem, but people who would abuse the license in order to add restriction is. Thus, BSD products can use GPL code, but they can't enable those who want to add restriction to the BSD product.

bane 12y ago

Remind me again how the GPL preserves my freedom.

teddyh 12y ago
> Remind me again how the GPL preserves my freedom. Very well. The governments and states of the world has agreed that any written or creative works shall have owners, called “copyright holders”, who can decide who, if any, other persons shall have the right to make further copies and/or make modifications of those works. This legal arrangement is made with a few specific business models in mind, but those business models originate from the age of printing presses, and this legal arrangement is not conducive to free collaboration and improvements of the works in question, as is the expected norm in, for example, science. Some people who are, for this reason, opposed to this arrangement, noted that this arrangement is, incidentally but necessarily, giving the authors quite a lot of power, and so they constructed the GPL. The GPL is a specific use to which authors can, if they wish, put these powers they have been granted. The GPL is meant to enable the above-mentioned collaborations and improvements without having any other deleterious effects, like making the authors feel like they are being (or could be) exploited. It is quite ingenious, since if you deny the right of authors to apply the GPL, you deny the rights given them by the legal arrangement of copyright. The specific way in which the GPL preserves your freedom depends on the work in question and your role in the situation. As a recipient of a work to which the author(s) have given you a license to use the freedoms granted by the GPL, you are permitted to do many things which would otherwise have been forbidden by copyright law. An an author, the GPL does not make you any more free (since copyright law already gives you absolute power), but the GPL is a tool which you can use to ensure that all users of your works are permitted to collaborate on and improve the work further, which might give you the incentive to produce and release more works.
- bane 12y ago
  > without having any other deleterious effects And I guess that's the problem isn't it? It does have deleterious effects, but within the narrow definition of "freedom" the GPL uses, those effects are unimportant/ignored. The long-term vision of the GPL does provide a kind of "freedom" along it's specific definition, but strongly denies all other kinds along the way. It's like saying "drinking alcohol is unhealthy" and citing cases of drunk driving and alcoholism as examples of this. And then narrowly defining "healthy" narrowly to include only lifestyles where no alcohol is consumed. Then completely ignoring and even actively working against all the ways in which alcohol can be healthy (and even healthier than no alcohol at all) because it doesn't fit into the narrow definition of "healthy". So when somebody says "remind me how the GNU Public Health Handbook keeps me healthy", when it's brought up that moderate alcohol consumption can increase various health factors and longevity...in other words that alcohol consumption can be "compatible" with health...it's the same kind of scenario here. The GPL's fixation with its specific ideological pure and completely arbitrary definition of "freedom" does not represent all kinds of freedom and that it purports to represent some kind of maximal freedom state is highly disingenuous at best and outright lying at worst. There are certain exercises of freedom that provide for better outcomes within certain criteria than anything the GPL offers and without certain deleterious effects that come from the GPL. But the GPL philosophy either acts like those shouldn't exist or are evil. And I find that highly spurious. There is no such thing as consequence-free freedom. There's always a trade-off of some kind. The GPL is a fiction that comes from a fantasy that this isn't the case and just like any philosophy that relies on ideological purity conveniently ignores the cases where the ideology has negative consequences.