Honestly, this is the first I have heard of said 'assertion'. Is there a reference you have, or is this normative?
By, 'constant drone', I suggest 'common' and 'prevolent'. For example, let's merely refer to RMS himself and the article that started this thread:
from RMS:If you take as your goal the increased popularity of certain free software, if you seek to convince more people to use some free programs some of the time, you might think those non-free program are helpful contributions to that goal.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...
But if our goal is freedom, that changes everything. Users cannot be free while using a non-free program. To free the citizens of cyberspace, we have to replace those non-free programs, not accept them. They are not contributions to our community, they are temptations to settle for continuing non-freedom.
Right. Non-FSF approved software is a temptation that must be resisted (because of a philosophical cause, not business justification).
Developing free replacements for them will be a big job; it may take years. The work may need the help of future hackers, young people today, people yet to be inspired to join the work on free software.
Um, excuse me? Resist the temptation of commercial software when no replacement may be around for *years*? And, it may even require people that aren't even *starting* work yet? What are businesses supposed to do in the meantime?
I'm not against causes, nor even tilting at windmills. I'll even do that myself. But, the words, 'unworkable' and 'unrealistic' come to mind regarding his evangelism to real people with real problems to be solved *today*. There's another term, according to Webster: zealot.
Let's just jump to the RMS conclusion:
The most effective way to strengthen our community for the future is to spread understanding of the value of freedom--to teach more people to recognize the moral unacceptability of non-free software.
This is indoctrination. That's fine: Anyone is welcome to push their own personal morals and justification (the power of self-righteousness is strong indeed). However, other models can be good too: What's wrong with the BSD assertion that BSD is "more free" than the GPL because you're allowed to do whatever you want?
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
Re:Real products v. Philosophical byproducts
Posted by: charleyb on January 08, 2004 11:04 PMBy, 'constant drone', I suggest 'common' and 'prevolent'. For example, let's merely refer to RMS himself and the article that started this thread:
Right. Non-FSF approved software is a temptation that must be resisted (because of a philosophical cause, not business justification).
Um, excuse me? Resist the temptation of commercial software when no replacement may be around for *years*? And, it may even require people that aren't even *starting* work yet? What are businesses supposed to do in the meantime?
I'm not against causes, nor even tilting at windmills. I'll even do that myself. But, the words, 'unworkable' and 'unrealistic' come to mind regarding his evangelism to real people with real problems to be solved *today*. There's another term, according to Webster: zealot.
Let's just jump to the RMS conclusion:
This is indoctrination. That's fine: Anyone is welcome to push their own personal morals and justification (the power of self-righteousness is strong indeed). However, other models can be good too: What's wrong with the BSD assertion that BSD is "more free" than the GPL because you're allowed to do whatever you want?
No, of course, that's evil because RMS says so.
#