image/svg+xml Follow

2/2 Stallman's just being consistent. He follows his premises to their logical conclusions. Do you?

Disclaimer: this neither affirms nor disavows RMS's position or any other on these issues. It is merely a comment on the incongruity that some who claim to be his fans show at this point.

thedailybeast.com/famed-mit-co

@iamjameswalters Okay, I was waiting for you to post your second part before I replied.

So Richard Stallman's beliefs on other subjects do not necessarily reflect the validity and soundness of another subject in which he believes, even if he is the main proponent of the latter idea.

Each idea should be held to its own merit. You can promote Free Software without promoting Richard Stallman.

@masterofthetiger That's actually the very quagmire I'm cautioning against. The fact that so many people are surprised about Stallman's views on these other issues shows that they haven't given more than five minutes' thought to the actual philosophy that undergirds the Free Software movement. Stallman is being consistent. It's his fans who are suddenly surprised by his views that are not.

If you don't believe in in one place, perhaps you don't really believe in in another.

@iamjameswalters What do you mean by your last statement? I am a bit confused.

Contains allusions to immorality Show more

Contains allusions to immorality Show more

Contains allusions to immorality Show more

@masterofthetiger Indeed, even more disturbing to me is the thought that not only is source code open, but it _must_ be open, and anyone who refuses to share it will be compelled under force of law to do so (this is what the GPL does). The code is "free" perhaps, but the users and developers are not, which leads me to think that someone has put the cart before the horse with regard to what freedom in software means (or at least ought to mean).

@iamjameswalters I thought it would come to this. You disagree with the ideas of Free Software.

@masterofthetiger I disagree with the Free Software movement's ideas of free software. 😉 I think open source code is great, I think claims that people or companies "own" code are absurd, and any license which restricts what I can do with my software (whether it's a EULA or the GPL) under threat of violence is immoral.

Philosophy I Show more

Philosophy II Show more

Philosophy III Show more

@danielst @masterofthetiger With regard to the first point, certainly. Age of consent is a culturally flexible concept. I think it's an important one, but not one that we have a dogmatic answer for. So, I don't find RMS's assertions here to be profoundly problematic. I'll happily concede the second point also: it's absurd to suggest that an arbitrary distinction of geography or chronology renders an act unethical. Raping someone is reprehensible no matter where or when it's done.

Philosophy II b Show more

Philosophy II b Show more

@danielst to the third point, I would say 1) contra Mt. 10:8, I didn't say that it's ethical to hoard code. Sharing code is certainly the most ethical way to develop. But compelling people to share code constitutes something unethical too.

Most certainly the GPL is not a burden on users. But I would disagree with the notion that the GPL made Linux thrive--Linux thrived in spite of the GPL. The decline in Linux Foundation lawsuits prosecuting GPL violations shows this.

@masterofthetiger

@iamjameswalters @masterofthetiger

And that is precisely why i use the MIT license for my free software, not GPL.

This is at odds with the FSF philosophy, intentionally.

@billstclair @masterofthetiger

Yes, if we must license our software (a notion that I dissent from), then let us choose the most permissive license possible, which is quite often the MIT.

It's even better however when projects like SQLite can publish everything public domain.

@iamjameswalters
I can tell you that Stallman himself would prefer that, however it also allows for people to use public domain software to make their own proprietary. The GPL is a way to work around that problem, by making anyone free to modify and redistribute the software as long as no additional restrictions are passed along.

This needs to be solved on a legal level for it to work. Meanwhile, we have the GPL to "patch" the problem until it can actually be fixed.

@billstclair

@masterofthetiger @billstclair Hmm... so to keep people free we have to restrict their freedom? 🤔

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Librem Social

Librem Social is an opt-in public network. Messages are shared under Creative Commons BY-SA 4.0 license terms. Policy.

Stay safe. Please abide by our code of conduct.

(Source code)