Re: [LI] (long,slightly oft) Richard Stallmans lecture clippings

[Arun Sharma <adsharma@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Feb 24, 2000 at 04:44:04PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>         However, since you don't yourself quite get the free software
>  movement (by your own admission), I have no problem understanding
>  your disquite with open software principles.

I never admitted that I don't "get" the free software movement. I don't 
have any dispute with open software principles/definitions either. 

> 
>  Arun> Lately, his statements and actions have deeply divided the open source
>  Arun> community into 
> 
>         Lately? Richard has said the same thisng, ever since he
>  invented teh free software movement.

True. But the division is a more recent thing. I'd characterize the FSF as 
a "fringe" movement (in terms of numbers) and only in the last few years
has it become more mainstream. And the particular division that I'm
talking about is after he started the GNU/Linux thing.

>  Arun> (a) People who just believe that open source is a good _methodology_ with
>  Arun>     no political overtones.
>  Arun> (b) People who emphasize "freedom" over everything else - i.e. Richard 
>  Arun>     Stallman (RMS for short).
> 
>         Rubish. Some of us are into it for other reasons than money
>  (which you have a problem with, but that's all right).

I don't have a problem with what you're in it for. I have a problem with
your/RMS's ideology on what I should be doing for a living -
specifically forbidding the selling of closed source software.

>  Arun> His use of the word "freedom" also has been controversial - as
> 
>         Not really. Most people who are not out to make money have
>  understood why fee software is called that.

No they don't. Ask your Mom what the "free" in free software means. And
she'll tell you - it's free as in beer.

> 
>  Arun> in I don't have the "freedom" to access your bank account. Note
>  Arun> that RMS also advocates having no passwords - so that machines
>  Arun> can be accessed "freely". Some people see his philosophy as
>  Arun> being communist.
> 
>         Communism, as in what karl Marx said, was a great system --
>  unfortunately, unlike freeee software, the implementation never came
>  close to the ideal

If that is an admission that RMS philosophy has communist ideals, then
I congratulate you for having done that.  I believe that communism
has good points and open source software has good points too. But 
forcing that on everyone for everything is what I disagree with.

> 
>  Arun> So the message to the next Linux fan/advocate who bumps into
>  Arun> the GNU web page or a RMS lecture - yes, the messages are
>  Arun> powerful, they make sense when seen from some angles.
> 
>         The view of free software proponets.

Yes. Specifically, the view of people who want *all* software to be
free.

> 
>  Arun> But they are also seen as being very controversial and hotly
>  Arun> debated and inappropriate for a large volume tech help mailing
>  Arun> list like this one.
> 
>         Yes, from people who want to milk money out of every bit of
>  code they right (did you not admit you only contribute to fe3e
>  software because you are paid to do it?).

Now that's getting personal and you're guessing. 

I just said I got paid for my work. I did not say "because". Not
all software that I write is paid for.  The best software that I've
written was paid for. I see free software as a donation - an act of
philonthropy. Not an end in itself.

>         I can see why the GPL is disturbing to you.

I'm not "disturbed" by GPL. Perhaps it was appropriate for RMS when
people were making money off of his source code - emacs and he wanted
to prevent that.

I just don't think that is in the interests of the end users of
free software because they get less choice by not being able to
choose between commercial and free software.

It is also not in the interests of the developers - because
a free software based economy can employ fewer programmers than
a hybrid economy containing both commercial and free software.

And I don't think the ideal world that FSF envisions is going to
happen. They'll have to shutdown all book publishers, music companies,
movie companies and currency printing facilities first. These are
all restricting your freedom to read books, listen to music, see
movies and buy what one likes.

And I'm getting a little tired of correcting all the things that you're
accusing me of in this thread. 

Bored,

	-Arun