RMS: A threat to society?
Mike Meyer
> I changed the subject to reflect this thread, since it's really
> stupid in the context in which it's been placed.
Thank you.
> Mike Meyer wrote in response to Brett Glass:
> > I will agree that mine was a nasty, vindictive attack. On the other
> > hand, what you do not see is that your attack on RMS was at least as
> > nasty and vindictive. They are, essentially, the same attack -
> > comparing someone to a lunatic with no regard for human life.
> Actually, I think that usually, Brett is mostly attacking RMS'
> philosophy; RMS is merely a convenient example of someone who
> espouses that philosophy.
If Brett stuck to attacking the FSF, the GPL and the philosphy behind
them, he'd be doing his cause a great favor. While I consider many of
his arguments *wrong*, they are arguments based on reason, and will
sway people. However, when he stoops to something like this:
> From: Brett Glass <br...@lariat.org>
> Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010912203732.0492cc80@localhost>
> Stallman, like the Islamic fundamentalists who did this terrible
> thing, promotes an extremist ideology which demonizes others, seeks
> to destroy them, and is motivated by spite and malice.
He comes off as - well, his description of Stallman accurately
describe the way he appears when he starts attacking
RMS. Unfortunately, anyone who tries to point this out to him he
instantly labeled as a "dune coon" - uh, sorry, make that - "fanatic
RMS sympathizer" without regard to anything that person has actually
said about RMS, the GPL or the FSF.
> In short, RMS is a scar, a shaved head, a monocle, and a bald
> cat away from being a villian in an Austin Powers movie...
I think that would require a major upgrade in his personal hygiene and
empathy, though it's been long enough since I've seen him that that
might have changed.
<mike
--
Mike Meyer <m...@mired.org> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/
Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majo...@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Stephen McKay
>For the man himself, from personal observation of the man and
>reading of his writings, I also think RMS has many attributes
>in common with Theodore Kazinski (the Unibomber). I can give
>you a large laundry list, starting with his luddism, the fact
>that he also has written a "Manifesto", his unkempt appearance,
Hmm. A "let's dump on RMS" thread, eh? Well, he's certainly
eccentric (not yet a crime), is wildly hairy (still not a crime),
and writes opinionated articles (soon to be a crime if encrypted).
This just makes him interesting.
He's stubborn and inflexible and deeply believes in what he does.
You can say that about the pope. Should everybody bend like the
willow and vary their beliefs to follow the current fashions?
>his appearing to have, according to the DSM IV, 5 out of the 11
>common symptoms of the rare condition Asperger's Syndrome ("Mad
>Scientist's Disease" -- a variant form of autism),
Now you'll have to be more specific. Are you just saying "He looks
funny, so he'll probably lose it and make an undead monster soon"?
>his disdain
>for the rule of law (in his case, intellectual property law),
>and so on.
Well, he certainly opposes intellectual property law, loudly and
frequently. But he doesn't break it, he uses it against people
who support it. That's "disdain" I suppose, but I think you
were implying criminality.
>In short, RMS is a scar, a shaved head, a monocle, and a bald
>cat away from being a villian in an Austin Powers movie...
Hardly the way I think of him. RMS is very useful as an unwavering
marker signifying the most extreme (yet viable) point of view in
the intellectual property/software debate. Any further and you
reach lunatic territory (illegal actions, violence, whathaveyou).
At the other end you have RIAA, MPAA, and a host of leeches (sorry,
I mean IP lawyers). They represent the other (possibly viable)
extreme, just this side of illegal actions.
I make sure what I do is between the two, and way closer to RMS.
The rocks are bigger and sharper on the RIAA/MPAA side than on the
RMS side of this narrow channel we are navigating.
Stephen.
PS Yes, I've met him. I kinda liked him, even so.
Brett Glass
> Well, he's certainly
>eccentric (not yet a crime), is wildly hairy (still not a crime),
>and writes opinionated articles (soon to be a crime if encrypted).
>This just makes him interesting.
If that's all he did, it would only make him interesting. But his
articles amount to propaganda, and he is attempting to lead a hateful
jihaad with many of the characteristics of a terrorist action. At
this point, he crosses the line between mere eccentricity and being
a true threat.
>Well, he certainly opposes intellectual property law, loudly and
>frequently. But he doesn't break it,
There's good reason to believe that he does and encourages others
to do so. (Note his assertion that "piracy" should be called "sharing
information with your neighbor.")
>Hardly the way I think of him. RMS is very useful as an unwavering
>marker signifying the most extreme (yet viable) point of view in
>the intellectual property/software debate. Any further and you
>reach lunatic territory (illegal actions, violence, whathaveyou).
What he is doing is, in fact, likely to be illegal in that it
uses the same anti-competitive and predatory tactics that Microsoft
used to destroy Netscape.
--Brett Glass
Gary W. Swearingen
> On Saturday, 15th September 2001, Terry Lambert wrote:
>
> >his disdain
> >for the rule of law (in his case, intellectual property law),
> >and so on.
>
> Well, he certainly opposes intellectual property law, loudly and
> frequently. But he doesn't break it, he uses it against people
> who support it. That's "disdain" I suppose, but I think you
> were implying criminality.
http://www.progressive-comp.com/Lists/?l=berlin-design&m=93118897023514&w=2
Read the above post of his to an ML and tell us he doesn't have disdain
for the rule of law (contract law in this case) and for fairness. And I
see such disdain reasonably considered a disdain for people in general
and take it personally. Zeal is a wonderful thing, but when it leads
someone to behaviour that is, to put a book in a word, unfair, people
should complain.
As for criminality, I'm not sure that was implied. I'm fairly sure that
including knowingly unenforcible clauses in license contracts is subject
to legal sanction; probably not under criminal law, but I think that was
your inference, not Terry's implication.
As for IP law, Stallman clearly embraces the concept, in practice if not
in law. Eliminate IP law and the closed-source developers, supported by
the judicial system, would just revert to contract law, as would Stallman
in his holy war to keep "free" software from being used by closed-source
software developers.
To be fair, Stallman's usual message reflects not a distain for the rule
of law; just for particular laws. I'm sure we all have disdain for
particular laws, but respect for the "rule" of even those laws.
NSA Surveillance
cut it out so we can concentrate on the Taliban, please? Thanks!
-- The NSA Guys
Joe Warner
LOL!!
--
Joe Warner
Daemon News
Bringing BSD Together
Daemon News E-Zine http://www.daemonnews.org
Daily Daemon News http://daily.daemonnews.org/
Print Magazine http://magazine.daemonnews.org/
Stephen McKay
>At 08:01 AM 9/18/2001, Stephen McKay wrote:
>
>>Well, he's certainly
>>eccentric (not yet a crime), is wildly hairy (still not a crime),
>>and writes opinionated articles (soon to be a crime if encrypted).
>>This just makes him interesting.
>
>If that's all he did, it would only make him interesting. But his
>articles amount to propaganda, and he is attempting to lead a hateful
>jihaad with many of the characteristics of a terrorist action. At
>this point, he crosses the line between mere eccentricity and being
>a true threat.
Hmm. ``Propaganda, n: The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause
or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating
such a doctrine or cause.'' Fair cop. But is that a problem? You do
the same. So do I. So did Martin Luthor King, but he was better at
it than you and me, and had a better cause.
Now about this "hateful jihaad", I've seen no evidence. And "terrorist
action"? What on earth do you think he has done that is remotely like
a terrorist action?
>>Well, he certainly opposes intellectual property law, loudly and
>>frequently. But he doesn't break it,
>
>There's good reason to believe that he does and encourages others
>to do so. (Note his assertion that "piracy" should be called "sharing
>information with your neighbor.")
There's quite a difference between saying "piracy == sharing" and actually
illegally distributing copyrighted works. I'm sure he's said the former
frequently, but I know of no cases of the latter. Saying "there's
good reason to believe" is the same as saying "I really want to believe".
>>Hardly the way I think of him. RMS is very useful as an unwavering
>>marker signifying the most extreme (yet viable) point of view in
>>the intellectual property/software debate. Any further and you
>>reach lunatic territory (illegal actions, violence, whathaveyou).
>
>What he is doing is, in fact, likely to be illegal in that it
>uses the same anti-competitive and predatory tactics that Microsoft
>used to destroy Netscape.
I suppose it could be illegal if RMS were a recognised software monopoly.
Until that time, his actions appear to me to be completely legal (and
honest too for that matter).
You obviously disagree with him, but amongst intelligent people your
purpose would be better served by reasoned argument against his philosophy,
not by attacking his person.
Stephen.
Stephen McKay
>Stephen McKay <mc...@thehub.com.au> writes:
>
>> Well, he certainly opposes intellectual property law, loudly and
>> frequently. But he doesn't break it, he uses it against people
>> who support it. That's "disdain" I suppose, but I think you
>> were implying criminality.
>
>http://www.progressive-comp.com/Lists/?l=berlin-design&m=93118897023514&w=2
>
>Read the above post of his to an ML and tell us he doesn't have disdain
>for the rule of law (contract law in this case) and for fairness.
Is this the right link? This is about CORBA IDL and how since there's
only one way to specify any protocol, you can't meaningfully copyright
it, and hence the GPL doesn't work on it. He goes on to say you could
GPL it anyway for minor FUD value.
Is that what you object to? I can't see how you could object to this as
it is a standard tactic used by all companies in every contract I've ever
seen, and pretty much everywhere else any company as tried to go legal on
anybody. Why else does every contract have that bit about still being
a valid contract even if part of it is ruled invalid by a court of law?
It's not a slap down argument if the worst he has done is tell somebody
"What the heck, put a GPL notice on it anyway, and maybe it will have
some minor effect along the lines you want". If that's the worst he's
done then maybe he's a saint after all!
>As for IP law, Stallman clearly embraces the concept, in practice if not
>in law.
There's a difference between using a thing against its makers, and embracing
it. He argues against it, but uses it when he must, since it's the present
environment. If he didn't use IP law, then he would be forgoing a weapon
in the fight against IP law. I like those sorts of contradictions. :-)
>Eliminate IP law and the closed-source developers, supported by
>the judicial system, would just revert to contract law, as would Stallman
>in his holy war to keep "free" software from being used by closed-source
>software developers.
You could well be right about that. Except for the "holy war" bit. You
should be careful about words like that in today's climate, since they
mean very specific things. RMS and his followers feel very strongly
about certain things, mostly to do with software. They disagree with
the status quo and work actively to change it. They are not involved
in a holy war. Not even a bit.
Randall Hamilton
> You could well be right about that. Except for the "holy war" bit. You
> should be careful about words like that in today's climate, since they
> mean very specific things. RMS and his followers feel very strongly
> about certain things, mostly to do with software. They disagree with
> the status quo and work actively to change it. They are not involved
> in a holy war. Not even a bit.
>
> Stephen.
i suppose that depends on your definition of 'holy war'
Last time i checked, RMS treated open source well into the 'fanatic'
department (when he is not ranting about facist Unix admins..EVIL wheel!).
i would easily classify his actions as a 'holy war' or crusade.
you dont really have to have a god for it to be a holy war, not in todays
socity anyway.
-Randall
Gary W. Swearingen
> Until that time, his actions appear to me to be completely legal (and
> honest too for that matter).
Legal enough to get by as far as I know; I won't argue that one. As for
honesty, we mostly talking about a kind of gray area of propaganda and
discussion and IP law violation in which I'm sure nobody is without sin.
We're generally discussing what is fair and unfair, etc. Apparently, we
have differing thresholds for "honest" here, possibly depending on our
morals or probably just our biases in this particular case, but it
shouldn't be suprising that a zealous leader of thousands who has
devoted his life to a cause would take his zeal sometimes too far. His
cause would be better served if his followers could notice some of his
errors and encourage him to correct himself.
Rambling on, regarding honesty and fairness:
Www.gnu.org says regarding "free software": "...you always have the
freedom to copy and change the software, even to sell copies." And
it claims that "The freedom to improve the program, and release your
improvements to the public,..." is protected by the GPL "for everyone".
Many of us consider those statements untrue (the GPL explains in detail
how one is not free to do those things) and see them as misleading
as the salesman's "free wizbang" promotion. Sure, people know the real
situation -- that the thing isn't really free and that there are
loopholes and exceptions. They may even use the term "free" in the same
context. But some of the people who use these false statements, like
Stallman, know what they are doing (having been told) and continue to do
it because it works in influencing people to support their cause.
That's dishonest. I'm not saying it's dishonest to misuse the word
"free" in "free software"; that word can mean anything (or nothing).
But in plain English like I quoted above, you can't honestly say that
with copyleft software one has "the freedom to copy and change" or to
"release your improvements"; Bill Gates might as well say that you
have the freedom to freely copy, change, and redistribute Windows -- you
just have to accept his OEM licensing restrictions to gaurantee that
freedom.
Finally, I'll mention a commonly seen similarly untrue statement which
as far as know doesn't come directly from Stallman but for which he
should take the blame, by not using his leadership to discourage: Much
copyleft software is labeled "this software is freely redistributable"
when, in fact, one may not freely redistribute it. One is constrainted
by terms and conditions of the GPL. One is NOT free to redistribute it
as part of a closed-source program, for interest. The GPL gives "The
precise terms and conditions for ... distribution". Free men might not
have the freedom to drive on the wrong side of the road and free
software might not have the freedom to be used in closed-source
software, but freely redistributable software has no such terms and
conditions. Someone who implies differently (and isn't merely confused
himself) is trying to pull one over on you.
Paul Robinson
> Www.gnu.org says regarding "free software": "...you always have the
> freedom to copy and change the software, even to sell copies." And
> it claims that "The freedom to improve the program, and release your
> improvements to the public,..." is protected by the GPL "for everyone".
OK, the issue here is that GPL does genuinely give you those freedoms,
except there are extra catches. Mainly, you have to dish out the source
code. There are plenty of reasons as to why that is restricting - we don't
need to go over that. However, they aren't technically lying at this point.
Just obfuscating the restriction by not presenting it at the same point in
the article.
> They may even use the term "free" in the same context.
Do we need to go over "free beer" and "free speech" again? :-)
> That's dishonest. I'm not saying it's dishonest to misuse the word
> "free" in "free software"; that word can mean anything (or nothing).
This is not a new argument, but is one that will run and run. We're here
because we use BSD, and we know it's free in a sense that we understand and
the company lawyers like. My personal take on this is that we (here on the
freebsd- lists) are probably here because we've decided we don't like Linux
and GNU for a variety of reasons. I'm not sure if our energies are best
spent arguing like they do over on various GNU and Linux lists. We know
we're right. :-)
Somebody came up with a quote the other day that "Linux is for people who
hate Windows, FreeBSD is for people who like Unix" - I'd like to add at the
end (although it loses it's poetic catchiness as a result) "GNU is for
people who don't mind not being liked"
> Free men might not
> have the freedom to drive on the wrong side of the road and free
> software might not have the freedom to be used in closed-source
> software, but freely redistributable software has no such terms and
> conditions. Someone who implies differently (and isn't merely confused
> himself) is trying to pull one over on you.
I'm British so I do have the right to drive on the 'wrong' (in fact the
'left') side of the road. :-) You are right about the difference between
free software and freely redistributable software though. I think their
argument boils down to 'credit where credit is due', mixed up with a lot of
frankly barmy socialism. Still, like I say, if it wasn't for GNU who would
we complain about? They're just jealous because we got the OS based on code
that wasn't written by a load of left-wing, socialist, idealistic thinking
hippies.... what's that... *Berkeley* you say? Ohhh... I see... hmph.
--
PR
Brett Glass
>I suppose it could be illegal if RMS were a recognised software monopoly.
Not true. Anti-competitive tactics such as "dumping" for the purpose of
destroying businesses are illegal whether or not one has a monopoly. See
the US's Robinson-Patman Act and the many state laws restricting unfair
business practices. (I don't know what the statutes are Down Under, but
would wager that there are similar laws there. Probably stricter ones,
in fact, based on what I *have* seen of Australian law.)
--Brett Glass
Brett Glass
>OK, the issue here is that GPL does genuinely give you those freedoms,
>except there are extra catches.
"Extra catches" are part and parcel of deceptive practices the world
over.
Mike Meyer
> >except there are extra catches.
> "Extra catches" are part and parcel of deceptive practices the world
> over.
The most egregious example I know of of such "extra catches" are those
associated with walking into a store to buy some commercial
software. Turns out that you almost never actually buy software - what
you buy is a box, some documentation, and disks with software that you
now have a license to use. The license almost inevitably makes it
illegal to do things that you could do if you had actually done what
the producer and retailer said you were doing, and bought the
software. The more such things the license makes illegal, the more
deceptive the practice. Many such licenses allow the producer to
revoke your license to use the software without compensation!
On that basis, the GPL is much less deceptive - and hence presumably
more honest and moral - than most commercial software licenses. The
various BSD licenses are even better, and the only ones that come
anywhere close to letting the user "own the software."
While I'm posting, I'd like to point out that Terry's subject is
ambiguous - he failed to specify which "society" he was talking about.
That can lead to confusion. For example, Islamic terrorists are no
threat to Islamic society.
The same thing applies to RMS. Since the vast majority of people in
the world don't have access to a computer, he's clearly no threat to
most of society. Limiting things to the society of software producers,
the last time it got thrashed out the conclusion was that the only
people really threatened by RMS et. al. were Bill Gates wannabes.
<mike
--
Mike Meyer <m...@mired.org> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/
Q: How do you make the gods laugh? A: Tell them your plans.