Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux helpSpecial Offers
Feature
Politics in Free Software
By on
September 06, 2003 (8:00:00 AM)
Share
Print
Comments
- by <SLASH HREF="//linux.com/relocate.pl?id=96875b27aa2e8d523f649acadf3a06e2" ID="2b6595f9b4647e474bd151cbadf2bc31" TITLE="http://www.tomchance.uklinux.net" TYPE="LINK">Tom Chance</SLASH> -
When he added a line <SLASH HREF="//linux.com/relocate.pl?id=f4de96bb38130f54e736ebcad81590ab" ID="fbcd5df962f4b2dd9661a1acadd351f0" TITLE="http://members.shaw.ca/dkite/aug292003.html" TYPE="LINK">crediting the United States Army</SLASH> to four of his applications, Neil Stevens created a <SLASH HREF="//linux.com/relocate.pl?id=e596ffbc9a41a4cda89d345e4196a812" ID="130274dc7b5588be8aada223111b11f8" TITLE="http://dot.kde.org/1062275899/" TYPE="LINK">small storm</SLASH> in the KDE community; politics, people said, was not to interfere with KDE, and his credit was removed. However, when the KDE Web site took part in the <SLASH HREF="http://swpat.ffii.org/group/demo/index.en.html" ID="2f688f2076bd4038301bd7ee457e3337" TITLE="" TYPE="LINK">online protest</SLASH> against software patents in Europe, people said politics was important to KDE. So what role does politics play in KDE, and in Free Software in general?
When he added a line <SLASH HREF="//linux.com/relocate.pl?id=f4de96bb38130f54e736ebcad81590ab" ID="fbcd5df962f4b2dd9661a1acadd351f0" TITLE="http://members.shaw.ca/dkite/aug292003.html" TYPE="LINK">crediting the United States Army</SLASH> to four of his applications, Neil Stevens created a <SLASH HREF="//linux.com/relocate.pl?id=e596ffbc9a41a4cda89d345e4196a812" ID="130274dc7b5588be8aada223111b11f8" TITLE="http://dot.kde.org/1062275899/" TYPE="LINK">small storm</SLASH> in the KDE community; politics, people said, was not to interfere with KDE, and his credit was removed. However, when the KDE Web site took part in the <SLASH HREF="http://swpat.ffii.org/group/demo/index.en.html" ID="2f688f2076bd4038301bd7ee457e3337" TITLE="" TYPE="LINK">online protest</SLASH> against software patents in Europe, people said politics was important to KDE. So what role does politics play in KDE, and in Free Software in general?
Denying that politics can play any part in Free Software is of course absurd. Politics is not confined to a few officials in suits, it is part of the fabric of life. When I consume goods, I tacitly accept that the companies involved in the production of those goods are acceptable to me, or rather that their practices are acceptable; when I use Free Software, I make a political statement about my thoughts on copyright law, software development methods, and perhaps a little of my ethics.
Moreover, software development is directly and indirectly affected by political decisions that are external to the development community. If it were illegal to distribute software with restrictive licences, proprietary software would not exist; if everybody had to pay royalties to the holder of the patent for the progress bar, very little software would use the progress bar. In an extreme example, if my country were invaded and the occupying power banned me from using Free Software, I would no longer be able to use KDE.
Free Software communities must therefore take political considerations seriously, just as they take technical considerations seriously. Some communities take political matters to heart, and define their community as much by their politics as by their technical achievements; other communities, meanwhile, have an unhealthy attitude, burying their heads in the sand and hoping the wind blows in a friendly way.
When thousands of Web sites took part in the online protest against software patents in Europe, they proclaimed their opposition to a political decision that could potentially destroy the Free Software community; it was a defencive action en masse to support the efforts of lobbyists and demonstrators in Brussels, and to raise awareness among Web site visitors. There was a consensus amongst the majority of hackers that software patents are bad, and Webmasters responded to this consensus.
In the case of KDE, there was criticism, with many questioning the effectiveness of the action, and some questioning the motivation. But certainly a majority of KDE developers and users were in agreement that software patents were bad for KDE, and so KDE acted.
So what about Neil Stevens? He believes that if it weren't for the US Army, he wouldn't be able to develop Free Software. His case raises two questions: is he correct, and regardless, should his credits be allowed?
The statement itself is questionable. If the US were invaded by almost any other nation in the world, he would still be able to write his software, since there are no governments that I know of that crack down on the development of media players and games like Megami. His statement also implies support for the actions of the US Army, and in particular its recent actions, and that certainly don't have anything to do with his ability to write code. However, regardless of whether or not it is correct, he is free to hold that opinion, and so is free to put the credit into his software if he wants.
But can his software then be included in KDE? As is apparent from the discussions amongst KDE developers and users, the majority find his credit disagreeable, either because they disagree with the statement itself, or don't think it should be included in a KDE application because it would imply KDE as a whole agrees with his credit. It is therefore proper that the credits be removed in KDE.
That KDE's action caused Stevens to remove his applications from KDE is unfortunate, but both parties are acting within their rights. However absurd the decision seems, however much you'd rather they didn't act in the way they did, one cannot say that they cannot act as they have.
This controversy highlights another political consideration often glossed over in the wider hacker community: internal political and social relations. Communities must address issues like that of Neil Stevens's credit and software patents with a consistent ethical approach, or they will run into trouble and controversy every time something like these cases comes along. Some organisations, like Debian, have put a lot of effort into defining exactly how the community handles political and social relations, so that responsibility and authority is clearly and justly assigned, and decision-making processes are clearly and justly defined. Others, like Gentoo and KDE, have few relations clearly codified, and so whenever important decisions confront the community, big debates flare up. These debates are no bad thing, so long as the community doesn't become disenfranchised, and individuals don't feel hostile towards the community and those in charge. But too often, it seems, the debates result in a lot of bad feelings and a lot of lost talent.
It is time that Free Software communities took political and social considerations more seriously; we simply cannot go on with large numbers of people believing that politics has no place in Free Software, or that burying one's head in the sand is a wise way to work. Every community should, once in a while, step back and question it works; it seems that many communities are long overdue for this political audit.
Tom Chance is a student reading Philosophy and Politics who uses and develops Free Software. He is involved in several political campaigning organisations, including the UK Campaign for Digital Rights and the Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure UK.
Comments
on Politics in Free SoftwareNote: Comments are owned by the poster. We are not responsible for their content.
> From where I see, the KDE seems to dictate what is acceptable politically or not.
> If they are so damn apolitical what's with the protest against s/ware patents?
Exactly that question was the subject to discussion on the KDE mailing list.
The two major sides were:
- KDE should make no politic statements at all
and
- There's a difference between a statement about software patents and other politic
subjects because SW patents directly affect KDE.
Neil Steven's CVS commit about the US army enabling him to write free software was
in response to the latter opinion.
"See, the US army has to do with KDE and because you made your protest against
SW patents I can make this statement.".
Somewhat far-fetched, if you ask me.
I see Neil's point but I still disagree.
> If they are so damn apolitical what's with the protest against s/ware patents?
Exactly that question was the subject to discussion on the KDE mailing list.
The two major sides were:
- KDE should make no politic statements at all
and
- There's a difference between a statement about software patents and other politic
subjects because SW patents directly affect KDE.
Neil Steven's CVS commit about the US army enabling him to write free software was
in response to the latter opinion.
"See, the US army has to do with KDE and because you made your protest against
SW patents I can make this statement.".
Somewhat far-fetched, if you ask me.
I see Neil's point but I still disagree.
From where I see, the KDE seems to dictate what is acceptable politically or not.
What did Neil Stevens expect, crediting the US Army? Most of the KDE developers our german. And right now they have an agenda, france and germany have this dream of a united europe becoming a superpower.The islamists have a similiar dream of an all powerful islamic state. It's the same old 'world domination thing', right now there is only one superpower and the europeans are pissed it's not them. They long ago sold their souls to socialist programs and protection by the US. They now have to grow to keep funding those social programs. France is quickly becoming the largest arab state outside the middle east.
Why can't we all just get along? -- Rodney King
Please stop sowing distrust and prejudice.
There have been incidences of political statements in KDE software before
(a different message, pro European, IIUC).
They have been dealt with, i.e. removed.
This has nothing to do with where the majority of KDE developers come from.
There have been incidences of political statements in KDE software before
(a different message, pro European, IIUC).
They have been dealt with, i.e. removed.
This has nothing to do with where the majority of KDE developers come from.
[not taking in effort, friendly relations in this statement] Or.. when the leaders of a country are afraid the enemy wants war and destroy their liberty (read: money / rich) and therefore make the people think that they are beeing threatened by the enemy, thus creating fake fear and / or fake reasons to enter war with a certain group.
Btw -- i recognize the above in an online game called Utopia. There are such powerplayers in that game, too. Who do everything to win... the biggest lies, marketing, fake reasons, power abuse, might makes right and various other unfair stuff does take place... i strike against where i can.
Btw -- i recognize the above in an online game called Utopia. There are such powerplayers in that game, too. Who do everything to win... the biggest lies, marketing, fake reasons, power abuse, might makes right and various other unfair stuff does take place... i strike against where i can.
Mostly agreed, but... There are differences between politics. There are huge differences between capitalism and capitalism. There are huge differences between communism and communism. Between communism and capitalism. Between socialism and communism. Between stalinism and communism. Between stalinism and communism. Between liberalism and communism. Between anarchism and comminism. Between the definitions of these terms.
The best system is imo not the one which is driven by egoism. It's the one driven my solidarity and freedom. Freedom for everyone. Not looking at what their opinions or so are.
However. When i look at the GPL i see freedom restrictions by the GPL whereas BSD doesn't.
Now look at the army. What do these people do? Well, that's quite clear what they do. Army is killed to train people. They also do positive things, at least here in my country like when there's a flood - granted, however i take it lots of their training is dedicated around defending and attacking humans, countries, buildings, and other stuff. Would you like to support this? Would you like to support the killing of people, animals, nature and the destroying of buildings and other materialistic stuff?
Several current instruments make it so that people are not Free. And yes, make that free as in speech. Beer doesn't matter. Make it so that people's lives don't count. Make it so that people are exploited. I'm not _only_ talking about certain dictatorships here........
"BTW the word french refers to the fact that the potato were cut into small parts and has nothing to do with people of France!"
Sure... proof? I assume you're joking...
The best system is imo not the one which is driven by egoism. It's the one driven my solidarity and freedom. Freedom for everyone. Not looking at what their opinions or so are.
However. When i look at the GPL i see freedom restrictions by the GPL whereas BSD doesn't.
Now look at the army. What do these people do? Well, that's quite clear what they do. Army is killed to train people. They also do positive things, at least here in my country like when there's a flood - granted, however i take it lots of their training is dedicated around defending and attacking humans, countries, buildings, and other stuff. Would you like to support this? Would you like to support the killing of people, animals, nature and the destroying of buildings and other materialistic stuff?
Several current instruments make it so that people are not Free. And yes, make that free as in speech. Beer doesn't matter. Make it so that people's lives don't count. Make it so that people are exploited. I'm not _only_ talking about certain dictatorships here........
"BTW the word french refers to the fact that the potato were cut into small parts and has nothing to do with people of France!"
Sure... proof? I assume you're joking...
No I am not joking...French Fries did not originate in France. The word frenched (in this case referring to the all-time favourite potato fritters) is a term used in the older days to refer to diced up or anything chopped into smaller portions.
And by the way, the french fries we know so well, served with mayonaise is considered a national dish in Belgium.
Eric
Malaysia
And by the way, the french fries we know so well, served with mayonaise is considered a national dish in Belgium.
Eric
Malaysia
People do free/open source software for different reasons.
*Most, I think do it for fun or name recognision.
*The free software foundations goal is socialism (freedom from owners).
*A few do it as a part of a business.
I don't think that there is one single political agenda that unites all or even most open source authors.
*Most, I think do it for fun or name recognision.
*The free software foundations goal is socialism (freedom from owners).
*A few do it as a part of a business.
I don't think that there is one single political agenda that unites all or even most open source authors.
I think you mean, "freedom for owners", as one of the reasons that people do free/open source software.
The gpl and rms have been compared to marxism. It is without a doubt that the pro foss forces contain elements of anti-capitalist, anti-US, anti-free trade, anti-globalization pinko commie liberals.
What do you expect? They support their president's forays into Somalia (and I'm sure applauded the "lesson" Aidid gave to US troops) and other minor military attacks, yet when it comes to removing modern day hitler, they side with the cheese eating surrender monkeys and supporting terrorist nations. 911? The US deserved it, they say. The US had it coming. Because the US fails to understand other countries.
This type of politics is ok. Trying to give credit to the US Army? Fascists!
In addition to the regular people using foss now, you have the fanatics, some of whom are terrorists. We all know who the fanatics are. alf. elf. EarthFirst! greenpeace. peta. hsus.
Setting fire to ski resorts, car dealerships, suvs, housing developments, and spiking trees to kill or maim logging workers is ok, as long as the end result is achieved, right?
What isn't widely known is that individuals and organizations like Ted Turner help to support groups like ELF or EarthFirst! and other environmental wacko organizations through payments for presentations or lobbying (reported in the news). Especially if he can get a better price for his own timber by supporting the enviros protesting the logging of dead trees on public land (also reported).
So it is ok for foss to be knee deep in politics. As long as the politics is acceptable to the foss advocates. If not, watch out!
And for the other poster, I wonder if he accepts the fact that the restaurant owner has the right to call the fried potatoes anything he wants in the US. It may be dumb from the liberal viewpoint, but he does have the right, doesn't he? Or would you like to take away his right to change the name?
What do you expect? They support their president's forays into Somalia (and I'm sure applauded the "lesson" Aidid gave to US troops) and other minor military attacks, yet when it comes to removing modern day hitler, they side with the cheese eating surrender monkeys and supporting terrorist nations. 911? The US deserved it, they say. The US had it coming. Because the US fails to understand other countries.
This type of politics is ok. Trying to give credit to the US Army? Fascists!
In addition to the regular people using foss now, you have the fanatics, some of whom are terrorists. We all know who the fanatics are. alf. elf. EarthFirst! greenpeace. peta. hsus.
Setting fire to ski resorts, car dealerships, suvs, housing developments, and spiking trees to kill or maim logging workers is ok, as long as the end result is achieved, right?
What isn't widely known is that individuals and organizations like Ted Turner help to support groups like ELF or EarthFirst! and other environmental wacko organizations through payments for presentations or lobbying (reported in the news). Especially if he can get a better price for his own timber by supporting the enviros protesting the logging of dead trees on public land (also reported).
So it is ok for foss to be knee deep in politics. As long as the politics is acceptable to the foss advocates. If not, watch out!
And for the other poster, I wonder if he accepts the fact that the restaurant owner has the right to call the fried potatoes anything he wants in the US. It may be dumb from the liberal viewpoint, but he does have the right, doesn't he? Or would you like to take away his right to change the name?
[disqualifying drivel about connection between OSS and terrorism snipped]
> And for the other poster, I wonder if he accepts the fact that the restaurant owner
> has the right to call the fried potatoes anything he wants in the US. It may be
> dumb from the liberal viewpoint, but he does have the right, doesn't he? Or would
> you like to take away his right to change the name?
Don't worry, neither the restaurant owner nor you are denied the right to act dumb.
> And for the other poster, I wonder if he accepts the fact that the restaurant owner
> has the right to call the fried potatoes anything he wants in the US. It may be
> dumb from the liberal viewpoint, but he does have the right, doesn't he? Or would
> you like to take away his right to change the name?
Don't worry, neither the restaurant owner nor you are denied the right to act dumb.
Not making a connection between foss and terrorism. I'll leave that charge for the pro-drm contingency lobbying the commerce committee.
Pointing out the undeniable political leanings of some in the foss camp. Just as the peaceniks supported saddam and the cheese eating surrender monkeys, so do a majority of those in that camp that are techies also support foss for its anti-everything I stated reasons.
FOSS is great. It is liberating from closed source. It is freedom. Freedom to modify. Freedom to own. Sometimes free as in beer. But it is also supported by <A HREF="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=624&ncid=757&e=10&u=/ap/20030829/ap_on_sc/mink_liberation" TITLE="yahoo.com">wackos</a yahoo.com> for different, anti-US reasons. This is undeniable.
The point of the piece was a discussion of the politics, or lack of it, in foss. If you think there is a lack of politics in foss, or you think that what I stated isn't tied into the kde/army issue, then you are the one who is dumb. Right, my liberal friend?
Pointing out the undeniable political leanings of some in the foss camp. Just as the peaceniks supported saddam and the cheese eating surrender monkeys, so do a majority of those in that camp that are techies also support foss for its anti-everything I stated reasons.
FOSS is great. It is liberating from closed source. It is freedom. Freedom to modify. Freedom to own. Sometimes free as in beer. But it is also supported by <A HREF="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=624&ncid=757&e=10&u=/ap/20030829/ap_on_sc/mink_liberation" TITLE="yahoo.com">wackos</a yahoo.com> for different, anti-US reasons. This is undeniable.
The point of the piece was a discussion of the politics, or lack of it, in foss. If you think there is a lack of politics in foss, or you think that what I stated isn't tied into the kde/army issue, then you are the one who is dumb. Right, my liberal friend?
I don't see any connection between the
"wacko" link you posted and OSS or
anti-US tendencies.
> and the cheese eating surrender monkeys,
I'm not going to discuss politics with
someone who insults people with different opinions.
Maybe you should think about that freedom thingy once more.
Don't bother to follow up to this message,
I won't read it.
And no, I'm not French.
"wacko" link you posted and OSS or
anti-US tendencies.
> and the cheese eating surrender monkeys,
I'm not going to discuss politics with
someone who insults people with different opinions.
Maybe you should think about that freedom thingy once more.
Don't bother to follow up to this message,
I won't read it.
And no, I'm not French.
| This type of politics is ok. Trying to give credit to the US Army? Fascists!
Get your facts straight! Reversions of CVS commits happened before with reversed roles,
and with the same valid reasons:
http://lists.kde.org/?l=kde-core-devel&m=10620008<nobr>8<wbr></nobr> 011558&w=2
You just cannot claim one-sidedness.
Get your facts straight! Reversions of CVS commits happened before with reversed roles,
and with the same valid reasons:
http://lists.kde.org/?l=kde-core-devel&m=10620008<nobr>8<wbr></nobr> 011558&w=2
You just cannot claim one-sidedness.
The gpl and rms have been compared to marxism.
It is without a doubt that the pro foss forces contain elements of anti-capitalist, anti-US, anti-free trade, anti-globalization pinko commie liberals.
What do you expect? They support their president's forays into Somalia (and I'm sure applauded the "lesson" Aidid gave to US troops) and other minor military attacks, yet when it comes to removing modern day hitler, they side with the cheese eating surrender monkeys and supporting terrorist nations.
911? The US deserved it, they say. The US had it coming.
In addition to the regular people using foss now, you have the fanatics, some of whom are terrorists. We all know who the fanatics are. alf. elf. EarthFirst! greenpeace. peta. hsus.
What isn't widely known is that individuals and organizations like Ted Turner help to support groups like ELF or EarthFirst! and other environmental wacko organizations through payments for presentations or lobbying (reported in the news).
So it is ok for foss to be knee deep in politics. As long as the politics is acceptable to the foss advocates. If not, watch out!
Speaking as a Marxist, I can tell you that the Free Software movement doesn't represent a Marxist movement. There are comparissons that can be made, but all of them exist because the Free Software movement is constructed as rationally free in the same way that Marxism dictates true democracy. (Yes, I said true democracy - if you think Marx dictated autocratic governments, you're a propagandized fool who knows absolutely shit about political ideologies.)
It is without a doubt that the pro foss forces contain elements of anti-capitalist, anti-US, anti-free trade, anti-globalization pinko commie liberals.
Sure, pick any city or community in the world and you'll find the same thing. Take New York City for example. You're going to find anti-capitalists everywhere. Likewise for all of the other groups. It's a big city, just like the Free Software movement, bloody fscking large. Does that mean that New York City is anti-capitalist? By your logic it seems to. And there's nothing in the GNU GPL that dictates against capitalism, in fact it intentionally promotes it. Of course, by capitalism I mean Free Market capitalism, not monopoly market capitalism. That is, of course, what capitalists supposedly promise the rest of society. Also, Marx wasn't Anti-US in any way, shape, or form - so I fail to find your allusion here. Must be the effect of poor education and about 50 or 60 years of propaganda. Marx widely wrote about his esteem for the United States at the time of his writings and felt that it could be truly free without violent revolution.
What do you expect? They support their president's forays into Somalia (and I'm sure applauded the "lesson" Aidid gave to US troops) and other minor military attacks, yet when it comes to removing modern day hitler, they side with the cheese eating surrender monkeys and supporting terrorist nations.
Why is it that all these conservatives always bring up Somalia?!? First, pick up a book and read something - you're implying that the Somali operation was a "liberal" move, but neglect to mention that we began the operation in the last month of Bush Sr.'s term in office. Unless you're implying that Bush Sr. ws a liberal or that feeding people who are being subject to genocide is a bad thing, then I fail to see your point on this.
And you equate opposition to the war with supporting terrorists. But, I have one question for you, where did we find terrorist camps in Iraq?
Did we find them in central Iraq? NO
So, then where did we find them?
Actually, we found the terrorist camps in Iraq in the northern Kurdish "controlled" regions. The Kurds were our "allies", but they regularly harbored Al-Qaida linked terrorist groups. Why would they do a thing like that?
It's very simple, but your nut-sized neo-conservative brain simply can't grasp reality. Almost all Islamic terrorist groups are fundamentalist Shia groups. Hussein represented the Suni faction of Islam and regularly repressed the Shia in Iraq. This is why we supported him through the 1980s and allowed him to take power.
Al-Qaida, and Bin Laden, were on record as hating Hussein at least as much as the United States. Please, do tell, why would these religious mortal enemies work together?
911? The US deserved it, they say. The US had it coming.
I've heard very few people say that the US deserved it. And I've heard absolutely 0 marxists ever say it. Most Marxists these days are pacifists and the loss of human life was completely unjust. It was a shock to us (as American citizens) as it was to you.
In addition to the regular people using foss now, you have the fanatics, some of whom are terrorists. We all know who the fanatics are. alf. elf. EarthFirst! greenpeace. peta. hsus.
And what about the conservative terrorist groups? What do they use? Oh yeah, and be careful who you call "terrorists"... you seem to have a poor understanding of the word. I have yet to see any of those organizations officially and actively terrorizing people to levy a result. Conservative groups, however, will stop at nothing.
What isn't widely known is that individuals and organizations like Ted Turner help to support groups like ELF or EarthFirst! and other environmental wacko organizations through payments for presentations or lobbying (reported in the news).
And all people funding the Bush in 2004 compaign are aiding terrorists in a much more real way. Terrorism is the use of terror to achieve a political goal. I dare you to say that what we're doing in the world militarily doesn't fit that definition.
So it is ok for foss to be knee deep in politics. As long as the politics is acceptable to the foss advocates. If not, watch out!
Sure! Are you trying to say that if I came onto a project that you maintained and started adding pro-Marx comments in the source and messages, you'd leave them in? Sure you would! Right! Hehe, if so, put your money where your mouth is. Oh, that's right, you conservatives are hypocrits by default and won't do what you advocate. What a fscking double standard.
"In addition to the regular people using foss now, you have the fanatics, some of whom are terrorists. We all know who the fanatics are. alf. elf. EarthFirst! greenpeace. peta. hsus."
FUD.
"In addition to the conservative people using foss now, you have the activists, some of whom are seen terrorists by the conservative republicans. We all know who the activists are. alf. elf. EarthFirst! greenpeace. peta. hsus."
My dear, if you have a problem with activism then just say that instead of the bullshit you've been skanking 'round. There are several achievements of these so called 'fanatics' and besides that the word 'fanatic' is FUD by itself. It doesn't say anything about what the people stand for.
Now, you try again, with real arguments, and some kind of thesis which actually contains a ground. So we can have a fruity discussion about these groups you think are soooo bad. Instead, talk about the goals, methods, theories, etcetera of these groups. Preferably with them instead of one who is solidair with them.
Now on to some other bullshit:
"[..] hitler"
Godwin's law.
"and other minor military attacks, yet when it comes to removing modern day hitler"
Ok, i'll do it again: comparing someone to him is not really.. well, non-biased or so. I mean, Saddam didn't do the same. And if he did, he did that looong time ago. Early 90's. The very good, proud, and respectable US army actually ran away from him during that time. Wooops... also, there are various theories of the USA becoming Germany in it's 30's... so i'd rather be careful about calling that legendary Austrian name if i were you... you might pull the trigger and shoot yourself =]
"[..] Fasicts"
Godwin's law.
"This type of politics is ok. Trying to give credit to the US Army? Fascists!"
Blergh. Were was this written? You write conclusions which were never out... if it was written by some KDE devver -which i highly doubt- then quote it.
To end:
"Liberty without solidarity is no liberty at all; it's just self-fulling prophecy of liberating itself, thus a form of marketing lie + egoism"
FUD.
"In addition to the conservative people using foss now, you have the activists, some of whom are seen terrorists by the conservative republicans. We all know who the activists are. alf. elf. EarthFirst! greenpeace. peta. hsus."
My dear, if you have a problem with activism then just say that instead of the bullshit you've been skanking 'round. There are several achievements of these so called 'fanatics' and besides that the word 'fanatic' is FUD by itself. It doesn't say anything about what the people stand for.
Now, you try again, with real arguments, and some kind of thesis which actually contains a ground. So we can have a fruity discussion about these groups you think are soooo bad. Instead, talk about the goals, methods, theories, etcetera of these groups. Preferably with them instead of one who is solidair with them.
Now on to some other bullshit:
"[..] hitler"
Godwin's law.
"and other minor military attacks, yet when it comes to removing modern day hitler"
Ok, i'll do it again: comparing someone to him is not really.. well, non-biased or so. I mean, Saddam didn't do the same. And if he did, he did that looong time ago. Early 90's. The very good, proud, and respectable US army actually ran away from him during that time. Wooops... also, there are various theories of the USA becoming Germany in it's 30's... so i'd rather be careful about calling that legendary Austrian name if i were you... you might pull the trigger and shoot yourself =]
"[..] Fasicts"
Godwin's law.
"This type of politics is ok. Trying to give credit to the US Army? Fascists!"
Blergh. Were was this written? You write conclusions which were never out... if it was written by some KDE devver -which i highly doubt- then quote it.
To end:
"Liberty without solidarity is no liberty at all; it's just self-fulling prophecy of liberating itself, thus a form of marketing lie + egoism"
I think you're a fanatic. If only your post was less emotional, I'd agree with you.
> The gpl and rms have been compared to marxism.
> It is without a doubt that the pro foss forces
> contain elements of anti-capitalist, anti-US,
> anti-free trade, anti-globalization pinko commie
> liberals.
Marxism is comparable to free software. Marxism is the opposite. Go on and read the comparition on the GNU's website, they compare the old Russia to the GPL. I'm gonna tell you, Marxism is much more like current USA's government than to real comunism.
And don't come with that shit that comunism is socialism, coz the 'third way' - Tony Blair is one who defends it - is a socialism "a bit more capitalist". If you are a blind north-American who hear 'socialism' and gets in coma, you should review your concepts. EUA controls your life (FBI, CIA, US Army), controls your will (CNN, AOL-Time_Warner, FOX), controls economy (create barriers for products of other countries), and is a shit when it cames to external politics. It is more like marxism than to the 'so-loved' capitalism.
And by the way, don't even think about using 'marxism' and 'comunism' as sinonymous. Most people do it, wrongly.
BTW, if you, lame guy, think green peace and other ecological organizations are terrorists, you should read some books of Fritjof Capra. It's an guy from Austria - i think you may even not know it exists anyway - but it's a good read. Then, maybe, you'd saw the world a bit different.
PS: Sorry for the english, is not my primary language - and will never be.
PPS: I'm an American - South-american - and never thought about USA as a good place to live. It can have everything, but the people... It's an arrogant country. And it will pay the price. How is the dollar<->euro by the way?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)
> It is without a doubt that the pro foss forces
> contain elements of anti-capitalist, anti-US,
> anti-free trade, anti-globalization pinko commie
> liberals.
Marxism is comparable to free software. Marxism is the opposite. Go on and read the comparition on the GNU's website, they compare the old Russia to the GPL. I'm gonna tell you, Marxism is much more like current USA's government than to real comunism.
And don't come with that shit that comunism is socialism, coz the 'third way' - Tony Blair is one who defends it - is a socialism "a bit more capitalist". If you are a blind north-American who hear 'socialism' and gets in coma, you should review your concepts. EUA controls your life (FBI, CIA, US Army), controls your will (CNN, AOL-Time_Warner, FOX), controls economy (create barriers for products of other countries), and is a shit when it cames to external politics. It is more like marxism than to the 'so-loved' capitalism.
And by the way, don't even think about using 'marxism' and 'comunism' as sinonymous. Most people do it, wrongly.
BTW, if you, lame guy, think green peace and other ecological organizations are terrorists, you should read some books of Fritjof Capra. It's an guy from Austria - i think you may even not know it exists anyway - but it's a good read. Then, maybe, you'd saw the world a bit different.
PS: Sorry for the english, is not my primary language - and will never be.
PPS: I'm an American - South-american - and never thought about USA as a good place to live. It can have everything, but the people... It's an arrogant country. And it will pay the price. How is the dollar<->euro by the way?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)
I'm sorry, but I thought that the free software movement meant "free as in speech." Perhaps it's really only "free as in beer" (sometimes), or "free as in speech as long as you agree with the rest of the developers."
The KDE community didn't have the right to remove that credit because in doing so they went against the philosophy that they claim to be guided by.
Yes, this means that if someone wants to credit a terrorist group for the impulse to work on free software because they showed them that resisting the US hegemony is a worth-while task then it should be kept in. Would I like it? No, I think it would be despicable; but that's free speech, right?
Now, if someone started putting directions on how to create bombs with a list of targets embedded into the code then I'd have no problem taking it out. Shouting "fire" in a crowded theater isn't "free speech," after all...
> The KDE community didn't have the right to remove that credit because in doing so
> they went against the philosophy that they claim to be guided by.
They had every right to modify the version
of the code that was inside their CVS
that will become the next version of KDE.
IMHO the license allows for that.
OTOH they can't and won't deny Neil Stevens
the right to maintain and distribute his own version
of the code. And this is what he does.
This problem is about the internal workings
of a software project, not about free speech.
> they went against the philosophy that they claim to be guided by.
They had every right to modify the version
of the code that was inside their CVS
that will become the next version of KDE.
IMHO the license allows for that.
OTOH they can't and won't deny Neil Stevens
the right to maintain and distribute his own version
of the code. And this is what he does.
This problem is about the internal workings
of a software project, not about free speech.
Exactly. The KDE project is a community effort, not a loose confederacy of independent apps. As such, you are subject to the collective will of the community over your code. If you don't like it, you are free to cede from the community, as Neil demonstrated.
... yet no free speech was really squashed, it was just removed from the KDE project and they aren't congress so, at least under the US constitution version of Free Speech, there was no free speech being squashed.
If we went by your definition and people were free to say what they wanted in KDE comments with KDE having no right to remove it, we could get coders adding in the Bible, the collected works of William Wordsworth or Alice Through The Looking Glass to comments making the source code downloads rather a lot bigger. n KDE should have the right to remove something and its nothing to do with free speech.
Obviously I'm being deliberately extreme in this example, but really the KDE people should within themselves be able to decide what goes and what doesn't and that coder in question is perfectly free to distribute himself. The same thing goes there, if a distribution channel does not want to carry his code, even because if those comments he doesn't have to and its not a free speech squashing incident either.
If we went by your definition and people were free to say what they wanted in KDE comments with KDE having no right to remove it, we could get coders adding in the Bible, the collected works of William Wordsworth or Alice Through The Looking Glass to comments making the source code downloads rather a lot bigger. n KDE should have the right to remove something and its nothing to do with free speech.
Obviously I'm being deliberately extreme in this example, but really the KDE people should within themselves be able to decide what goes and what doesn't and that coder in question is perfectly free to distribute himself. The same thing goes there, if a distribution channel does not want to carry his code, even because if those comments he doesn't have to and its not a free speech squashing incident either.
Then, someone who's working for MS and also does small devs for GNOME got $10.000 if he added a statement "Microsoft rocks" in the software. The statement hasn't got a fuck to do with GNOME, but oh well, we'll just accept it, and keep it there. I mean, it's 'freedom of speech'.
Then, a few weeks later, a Chinese man who's running a company for distributing Thai whores contacted Flubox devvers to please include a 'thanks' (and a small commercial) because his son is running a mirror in China containing Fluxbox.
If it doesn't have a fuck to do, keep it out. Sigh. Is this so hard to understand?
LONG LIVE THE WORKERS OF THE 19TH CENTURY WHO MADE POSSIBLE DEMOCRACY IN EUROPE. LET'S PUT THIS IN ALL SOFTWARE WE KNOW!!!
And don't forget our parents and grand parents who made our life like it is now, and actually made or very self.
Also, thanks Go.. NO... NOT GOD! It's Allah.. Noooo it's RMS.. No, you liar, it's Bill.Blaaa.
--
Some kind of bottomline: is it a clear fact, or aren't people outspoken? If person X contributes code or tests out the program and reports bugs that is a fact. It can be checked, and well, we're sure one did so. So it can be added. We can't add stuff like KDE.
The patent stuff directly goes against the freedom of KDE devvers to code... that much isn't directly clear, but when looking at various patents by the European and US patent offices we can easily assume such ridiculous things WILL happen.
Then, a few weeks later, a Chinese man who's running a company for distributing Thai whores contacted Flubox devvers to please include a 'thanks' (and a small commercial) because his son is running a mirror in China containing Fluxbox.
If it doesn't have a fuck to do, keep it out. Sigh. Is this so hard to understand?
LONG LIVE THE WORKERS OF THE 19TH CENTURY WHO MADE POSSIBLE DEMOCRACY IN EUROPE. LET'S PUT THIS IN ALL SOFTWARE WE KNOW!!!
And don't forget our parents and grand parents who made our life like it is now, and actually made or very self.
Also, thanks Go.. NO... NOT GOD! It's Allah.. Noooo it's RMS.. No, you liar, it's Bill.Blaaa.
--
Some kind of bottomline: is it a clear fact, or aren't people outspoken? If person X contributes code or tests out the program and reports bugs that is a fact. It can be checked, and well, we're sure one did so. So it can be added. We can't add stuff like KDE.
The patent stuff directly goes against the freedom of KDE devvers to code... that much isn't directly clear, but when looking at various patents by the European and US patent offices we can easily assume such ridiculous things WILL happen.
"Yes, this means that if someone wants to credit a terrorist group for the impulse to work on free software because they showed them that resisting the US hegemony is a worth-while task then it should be kept in. Would I like it? No, I think it would be despicable; but that's free speech, right?"
Yes - but the US army is a terrorist group.
TROLL, please shut up.
Again KDE-bashing from a non-contributor.
There was a fuss about a commit by Neil Stevens, who added this code to the 4 applications he wrote and maintains.
"s_aboutData->addCredit("United States Army", I18N_NOOP("Preserving the freedom that made this software possible"));
Whether one agrees or disagrees with the sentiments expressed, it was deemed unacceptable that such political statements be included in applications."
I fully agree. There is no general consensus that the US military makes our world safer. Most people think it was the other way round. An Army is an instrument. And as Iraq was invaded in violation of international law it is not the US army we shall blame nor credit. It's the political decision maker. Btw: Of course it is crap that the army preserves freedom. An army defends the existing political system regardless of its values. Horse or rider?
And it is crap that an army defends freedom because an army is a non-liberal governmental body with strong restrictions to free speech. So this institution is a potential thread to democracy.
There is a mayor difference of a support of a governmental organisation and a protest against government action that pose threads to development. You'd better know.
You are a member of FFII UK? I don't know you. Since when?
Politics? nothing wrong with it. We need persons that defend our interests against the state and the lawyer community.
KDE did support our Eurolinux Alliance petition for several years.
Again KDE-bashing from a non-contributor.
There was a fuss about a commit by Neil Stevens, who added this code to the 4 applications he wrote and maintains.
"s_aboutData->addCredit("United States Army", I18N_NOOP("Preserving the freedom that made this software possible"));
Whether one agrees or disagrees with the sentiments expressed, it was deemed unacceptable that such political statements be included in applications."
I fully agree. There is no general consensus that the US military makes our world safer. Most people think it was the other way round. An Army is an instrument. And as Iraq was invaded in violation of international law it is not the US army we shall blame nor credit. It's the political decision maker. Btw: Of course it is crap that the army preserves freedom. An army defends the existing political system regardless of its values. Horse or rider?
And it is crap that an army defends freedom because an army is a non-liberal governmental body with strong restrictions to free speech. So this institution is a potential thread to democracy.
There is a mayor difference of a support of a governmental organisation and a protest against government action that pose threads to development. You'd better know.
You are a member of FFII UK? I don't know you. Since when?
Politics? nothing wrong with it. We need persons that defend our interests against the state and the lawyer community.
KDE did support our Eurolinux Alliance petition for several years.
Very well said.
At least somebody is thinking clearly about this whole farce.
And to those claiming the OpenSource is the same as free speech, you are right but only to the extent that Neil Stevens can always make a Neil Stevens version of KDE ( maybe called NS-KDE ) and add credits to anyone he wants. That's freedom.
At least somebody is thinking clearly about this whole farce.
And to those claiming the OpenSource is the same as free speech, you are right but only to the extent that Neil Stevens can always make a Neil Stevens version of KDE ( maybe called NS-KDE ) and add credits to anyone he wants. That's freedom.
Did you read my article?
Where did I KDE bash? If anything, I noted my support for KDE's decision to remove the comments about the US army, stating that I did not agree with Neil Stevens' reasoning.
Where did I KDE bash? If anything, I noted my support for KDE's decision to remove the comments about the US army, stating that I did not agree with Neil Stevens' reasoning.
As someone involved with KDE, I did not think you trolled at all. Well spoken in fact.
1.) yes, it's a witless troll.
2.) Mr.Chance is being paid by the word.
3.) By conflating all political actions in their entirety, he demonstrates weak reasoning by equating an unprofessional display of opinion with public protest and standing up for rights.
We should thank Mr. Chance for alerting us to look elsewhere when we see his authorship.
-salvarsan
--
2.) Mr.Chance is being paid by the word.
3.) By conflating all political actions in their entirety, he demonstrates weak reasoning by equating an unprofessional display of opinion with public protest and standing up for rights.
We should thank Mr. Chance for alerting us to look elsewhere when we see his authorship.
-salvarsan
--
2.) Mr.Chance is being paid by the word.
I'd like to point out that I wasn't paid a penny for this article.
I'd like to point out that I wasn't paid a penny for this article.
>> 2.) Mr.Chance is being paid by the word.
>
> I'd like to point out that I wasn't paid a penny
> for this article.
I stand corrected. (shrug)
-salvarsan
--
>
> I'd like to point out that I wasn't paid a penny
> for this article.
I stand corrected. (shrug)
-salvarsan
--
There is no KDE bashing in Tom's article. Please at least read it before you react.
feder,
Were I not against it on principle, I might urge you to take your own advice.
I love your coupling of 'it was deemed unacceptable' with your closing epilogue of 'We need persons that defend our interests against
the state and the lawyer community.' Care to drench us with more hypocrisy regarding the little 'state' formed by the KDE staff? Well, whomever did the 'deeming', as you put it was exercising petty power brokerage at best and outright censorship at worst. I wonder how
Stallman feels about this. He might rage against me. Who knows. Would he tell Neil to park his code in the CSV slot and check his
personality at the door? Are we next going to tell religious programmers that they had better not credit a higher authority in their technical works, lest the state remove the offending remarks?
The smartest people I know are all open source advocates, users and developers. They come in every political and ideological stripe and
flavor. They are the best of the best, giving of the sweat of their technical labors to others at the cost of recognition only. To be marginalized by little Napoleons because they think that 'others might be offended' of elements of their personality speaks only of how thin-skinned and arrogant some people are. This is the biggest fault of the intellectual. Some smart people get it in their heads that they are smarter, both technically and politically, than everybody
else. Then they commit the inevitable act of hubris and censorship, for the 'good of all', because they are afraid someone will be
offended.
Here's the problem. Anybody who is teetering on the precipice of collapsing in personal rage and turmoil, at their terminal, while reading the KDE credits, has obviously been drinking too much coffee and perhaps needs medication. The open source lot is a passionate one, tending towards late night frivolity and fits of fancy.
I was just as annoyed by the political machinations regarding Theo de Raadt and his break off to OpenBSD and the consequences of his
remarks about the US military. Now all suffer further fractional breakup of distributions and people, over largely childish behavior by both parties.
The same could be said about this idea of boycotting Mandrake. I know engineers who are quite conservative, remarking on how ridiculous
the idea is. Boycotts only hurt people and smear the an entity tied to people of diverse political dispositions. Grow up. Grow a skin. Get over it.
I'm glad reader #69278 mentioned ARPA. It's always amuses me, to see people bash the US military, using the very ether that was brewed by
the American taxpayer. Iranian blogs, urging terrorist jihad against the infidels, over the internet. Perhaps this is democracy at its most
exquisite. It's the raging cauldron of opinion which keeps democracies from collapsing into the singularity of groupthink and fascism where 'solutions' pregressively vector towards cascade failure.
Ferreting out those you disagree with, and silencing them without discussion, is the real threat to democracy. If the credits are to represent the person behind them, let them stand. Political correctness is the true evil of our time. Seeing it exercised in open source will only
distress the whole of the community.
poe
Were I not against it on principle, I might urge you to take your own advice.
I love your coupling of 'it was deemed unacceptable' with your closing epilogue of 'We need persons that defend our interests against
the state and the lawyer community.' Care to drench us with more hypocrisy regarding the little 'state' formed by the KDE staff? Well, whomever did the 'deeming', as you put it was exercising petty power brokerage at best and outright censorship at worst. I wonder how
Stallman feels about this. He might rage against me. Who knows. Would he tell Neil to park his code in the CSV slot and check his
personality at the door? Are we next going to tell religious programmers that they had better not credit a higher authority in their technical works, lest the state remove the offending remarks?
The smartest people I know are all open source advocates, users and developers. They come in every political and ideological stripe and
flavor. They are the best of the best, giving of the sweat of their technical labors to others at the cost of recognition only. To be marginalized by little Napoleons because they think that 'others might be offended' of elements of their personality speaks only of how thin-skinned and arrogant some people are. This is the biggest fault of the intellectual. Some smart people get it in their heads that they are smarter, both technically and politically, than everybody
else. Then they commit the inevitable act of hubris and censorship, for the 'good of all', because they are afraid someone will be
offended.
Here's the problem. Anybody who is teetering on the precipice of collapsing in personal rage and turmoil, at their terminal, while reading the KDE credits, has obviously been drinking too much coffee and perhaps needs medication. The open source lot is a passionate one, tending towards late night frivolity and fits of fancy.
I was just as annoyed by the political machinations regarding Theo de Raadt and his break off to OpenBSD and the consequences of his
remarks about the US military. Now all suffer further fractional breakup of distributions and people, over largely childish behavior by both parties.
The same could be said about this idea of boycotting Mandrake. I know engineers who are quite conservative, remarking on how ridiculous
the idea is. Boycotts only hurt people and smear the an entity tied to people of diverse political dispositions. Grow up. Grow a skin. Get over it.
I'm glad reader #69278 mentioned ARPA. It's always amuses me, to see people bash the US military, using the very ether that was brewed by
the American taxpayer. Iranian blogs, urging terrorist jihad against the infidels, over the internet. Perhaps this is democracy at its most
exquisite. It's the raging cauldron of opinion which keeps democracies from collapsing into the singularity of groupthink and fascism where 'solutions' pregressively vector towards cascade failure.
Ferreting out those you disagree with, and silencing them without discussion, is the real threat to democracy. If the credits are to represent the person behind them, let them stand. Political correctness is the true evil of our time. Seeing it exercised in open source will only
distress the whole of the community.
poe
Well said.
This same thing has already been said earlier, but I'll repeat. The KDE is in essence a community project. Thus when they include political comments in their software, they are speaking on behalf of the whole community although only one person committed the opinion in the first place. It doesn't matter whether it's just one piece of software that says it, when it has the KDE logo on it, it means that the KDE project accepts these statements and supports them, which clearly isn't the case here.
The fact that community has some rules and/or opinions about what they want to represent doesn't limit anyones freedom of speech in any way. As an individual, Mr. Stevens may have any opinions he wants, but as a member of the KDE community he should adhere to the opinions of the community. The same thing works with any kind of community, be it a sports club, a company or a whole country. You cannot say just about anything on the community's behalf, whatever you might think personally. If your don't agree with what the community thinks you are perfectly free to leave and express your opinions individually or in a community that supports them.
The KDE project has in no way violated Mr. Stevens' freedom of speech; he is perfectly free to speak as he wishes. Only thing they said is that he should choose a different channel for himself than the KDE project.
I have some good political analogies to add here, but I'll leave them out to prevent the inevitable flaming<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)
The fact that community has some rules and/or opinions about what they want to represent doesn't limit anyones freedom of speech in any way. As an individual, Mr. Stevens may have any opinions he wants, but as a member of the KDE community he should adhere to the opinions of the community. The same thing works with any kind of community, be it a sports club, a company or a whole country. You cannot say just about anything on the community's behalf, whatever you might think personally. If your don't agree with what the community thinks you are perfectly free to leave and express your opinions individually or in a community that supports them.
The KDE project has in no way violated Mr. Stevens' freedom of speech; he is perfectly free to speak as he wishes. Only thing they said is that he should choose a different channel for himself than the KDE project.
I have some good political analogies to add here, but I'll leave them out to prevent the inevitable flaming<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)
Fellow anonymous,
I wouldn't flame you for making rational conversation. It
would not be civilized. The distinction I was attempting to
make was one of individuals and not community. Communities
do not exist without individuals and the attributes that
mark them so. First of all, this argument is not about KDE's
right to express itself as a community. Its about its
judicious use of that power.
You said:
"It doesn't matter whether it's just one piece of software..."
But it does matter. The code is the work of a community. A
community of individuals. People make the same absurd
arguments about 'evil corporations', as if a company is
somehow some autonomous organism which has a collective,
nefarious mind of its own. The individuals who run companies
and government entities only have the power vended to them
by their people. Sometimes people allow an organization to
take too much power. With governments, this can be deadly
(i.e. Iraq or Nazi Germany). Open source communities only
have the power of the charity of the donors.
To seize censor authority by force, in a community of
donors, is folly. It's like seizing dry cake in ones
clenched fist, and declaring moral victory as is separates
and crumbles before you. The contributors will not protest,
they will simply go away. This happened when OpenBSD broke
away from NetBSD. All things that reverse entropy, take
energy to do so. In open source, that energy is donated, in
the efforts of the willing. Surprisingly, you are right in
that KDE did not violate his freedom of speech, as he has
been able to voice his position freely. What they did was
insult him by summary deletion.
You also say he is perfectly free to leave if he doesn't
agree with the community. This is half true. Yes he has a
right to leave. No, the community has no right to do
anything if it is not being represented properly. It may
have the authority, but not the right.
The point of contention here, was whether Neil was
submitting his credit to the military under KDE's generic
standard:
"Here are the list of entities who are responsible for KDE..."
or under the banner of:
"Neil Steven's, individual contributor to KDE,
gives credit to those who inspired him..."
To be honest, I don't know which category applies
here. So, I will treat them both.
If KDE's officially stated position is to leave all
politics out of their community vocabulary, then they should
exhibit that behavior without exception or prejudice.
Arguably, the EU patent issue is probably one which has a
consensus of disdain within the open source community. It is
also directly related to software, and open source. But it
is political. This case reminds us that, it is the work of
the individuals, being executed in the machines, that is
being spoken for by KDE, not the opinions of it's
contributors. It is the work, not the opinions, which will
be noticed first, by those who have passed over the
credits. If it is the intention of the 'community', as you
put it, to officially take a position on political issues,
which is not strictly neutral, then they had better erect a
referendum of their contributors, to verify that the voice
of KDE's representative staff is indeed the proxy of its
parts.
Here is the important rub. If the KDE state machine is
assuming the restrictive neutral state, taking ANY political
position, negates the right of the KDE staff to engage in
any unilateral censorship of its community members. Such
behavior, under these conditions, is clearly hypocrisy.
However, if Neil's credit's are specifically marked as his
own words, my previous post stands in force:
Those who read the credits, for any work of art, in our
fast paced world, are obviously sophisticated and
intelligent enough to understand who's voice is ringing out.
We should also be able to separate the talent from the
beliefs. I take it Neil's code was good enough for commit,
so anybody who stands up and says, "I'm no longer going to
use KDE, because it's coded by communists, or fascists or
jackbooted war mongering military thugs...", is just
cheating themselves of quality software donated for
free. Who needs them anyway.
Anybody who thinks comments in Neil's code or credits,
represent all of KDE, is either personally offended by his
opinions, or is not capable of recognizing the difference
between the community and individuals.
I wouldn't flame you for making rational conversation. It
would not be civilized. The distinction I was attempting to
make was one of individuals and not community. Communities
do not exist without individuals and the attributes that
mark them so. First of all, this argument is not about KDE's
right to express itself as a community. Its about its
judicious use of that power.
You said:
"It doesn't matter whether it's just one piece of software..."
But it does matter. The code is the work of a community. A
community of individuals. People make the same absurd
arguments about 'evil corporations', as if a company is
somehow some autonomous organism which has a collective,
nefarious mind of its own. The individuals who run companies
and government entities only have the power vended to them
by their people. Sometimes people allow an organization to
take too much power. With governments, this can be deadly
(i.e. Iraq or Nazi Germany). Open source communities only
have the power of the charity of the donors.
To seize censor authority by force, in a community of
donors, is folly. It's like seizing dry cake in ones
clenched fist, and declaring moral victory as is separates
and crumbles before you. The contributors will not protest,
they will simply go away. This happened when OpenBSD broke
away from NetBSD. All things that reverse entropy, take
energy to do so. In open source, that energy is donated, in
the efforts of the willing. Surprisingly, you are right in
that KDE did not violate his freedom of speech, as he has
been able to voice his position freely. What they did was
insult him by summary deletion.
You also say he is perfectly free to leave if he doesn't
agree with the community. This is half true. Yes he has a
right to leave. No, the community has no right to do
anything if it is not being represented properly. It may
have the authority, but not the right.
The point of contention here, was whether Neil was
submitting his credit to the military under KDE's generic
standard:
"Here are the list of entities who are responsible for KDE..."
or under the banner of:
"Neil Steven's, individual contributor to KDE,
gives credit to those who inspired him..."
To be honest, I don't know which category applies
here. So, I will treat them both.
If KDE's officially stated position is to leave all
politics out of their community vocabulary, then they should
exhibit that behavior without exception or prejudice.
Arguably, the EU patent issue is probably one which has a
consensus of disdain within the open source community. It is
also directly related to software, and open source. But it
is political. This case reminds us that, it is the work of
the individuals, being executed in the machines, that is
being spoken for by KDE, not the opinions of it's
contributors. It is the work, not the opinions, which will
be noticed first, by those who have passed over the
credits. If it is the intention of the 'community', as you
put it, to officially take a position on political issues,
which is not strictly neutral, then they had better erect a
referendum of their contributors, to verify that the voice
of KDE's representative staff is indeed the proxy of its
parts.
Here is the important rub. If the KDE state machine is
assuming the restrictive neutral state, taking ANY political
position, negates the right of the KDE staff to engage in
any unilateral censorship of its community members. Such
behavior, under these conditions, is clearly hypocrisy.
However, if Neil's credit's are specifically marked as his
own words, my previous post stands in force:
Those who read the credits, for any work of art, in our
fast paced world, are obviously sophisticated and
intelligent enough to understand who's voice is ringing out.
We should also be able to separate the talent from the
beliefs. I take it Neil's code was good enough for commit,
so anybody who stands up and says, "I'm no longer going to
use KDE, because it's coded by communists, or fascists or
jackbooted war mongering military thugs...", is just
cheating themselves of quality software donated for
free. Who needs them anyway.
Anybody who thinks comments in Neil's code or credits,
represent all of KDE, is either personally offended by his
opinions, or is not capable of recognizing the difference
between the community and individuals.
Fellow anonymous,
I wouldn't flame you for making rational conversation. It
would not be civilized. The distinction I was attempting to
make was one of individuals and not community. Communities
do not exist without individuals and the attributes that
mark them so. First of all, this argument is not about KDE's
right to express itself as a community. Its about its
judicious use of that power.
You said:
"It doesn't matter whether it's just one piece of software..."
But it does matter. The code is the work of a community. A
community of individuals. People make the same absurd
arguments about 'evil corporations', as if a company is
somehow some autonomous organism which has a collective,
nefarious mind of its own. The individuals who run companies
and government entities only have the power vended to them
by their people. Sometimes people allow an organization to
take too much power. With governments, this can be deadly
(i.e. Iraq or Nazi Germany). Open source communities only
have the power of the charity of the donors.
To seize censor authority by force, in a community of
donors, is folly. It's like seizing dry cake in ones
clenched fist, and declaring moral victory as is separates
and crumbles before you. The contributors will not protest,
they will simply go away. This happened when OpenBSD broke
away from NetBSD. All things that reverse entropy, take
energy to do so. In open source, that energy is donated, in
the efforts of the willing. Surprisingly, you are right in
that KDE did not violate his freedom of speech, as he has
been able to voice his position freely. What they did was
insult him by summary deletion.
You also say he is perfectly free to leave if he doesn't
agree with the community. This is half true. Yes he has a
right to leave. No, the community has no right to do
anything if it is not being represented properly. It may
have the authority, but not the right.
The point of contention here, was whether Neil was
submitting his credit to the military under KDE's generic
standard:
"Here are the list of entities who are responsible for KDE..."
or under the banner of:
"Neil Steven's, individual contributor to KDE,
gives credit to those who inspired him..."
To be honest, I don't know which category applies
here. So, I will treat them both.
If KDE's officially stated position is to leave all
politics out of their community vocabulary, then they should
exhibit that behavior without exception or prejudice.
Arguably, the EU patent issue is probably one which has a
consensus of disdain within the open source community. It is
also directly related to software, and open source. But it
is political. This case reminds us that, it is the work of
the individuals, being executed in the machines, that is
being spoken for by KDE, not the opinions of it's
contributors. It is the work, not the opinions, which will
be noticed first, by those who have passed over the
credits. If it is the intention of the 'community', as you
put it, to officially take a position on political issues,
which is not strictly neutral, then they had better erect a
referendum of their contributors, to verify that the voice
of KDE's representative staff is indeed the proxy of its
parts.
Here is the important rub. If the KDE state machine is
assuming the restrictive neutral state, taking ANY political
position, negates the right of the KDE staff to engage in
any unilateral censorship of its community members. Such
behavior, under these conditions, is clearly hypocrisy.
However, if Neil's credit's are specifically marked as his
own words, my previous post stands in force:
Those who read the credits, for any work of art, in our
fast paced world, are obviously sophisticated and
intelligent enough to understand who's voice is ringing out.
We should also be able to separate the talent from the
beliefs. I take it Neil's code was good enough for commit,
so anybody who stands up and says, "I'm no longer going to
use KDE, because it's coded by communists, or fascists or
jackbooted war mongering military thugs...", is just
cheating themselves of quality software donated for
free. Who needs them anyway.
Anybody who thinks comments in Neil's code or credits,
represent all of KDE, is either personally offended by his
opinions, or is not capable of recognizing the difference
between the community and individuals.
poe
I wouldn't flame you for making rational conversation. It
would not be civilized. The distinction I was attempting to
make was one of individuals and not community. Communities
do not exist without individuals and the attributes that
mark them so. First of all, this argument is not about KDE's
right to express itself as a community. Its about its
judicious use of that power.
You said:
"It doesn't matter whether it's just one piece of software..."
But it does matter. The code is the work of a community. A
community of individuals. People make the same absurd
arguments about 'evil corporations', as if a company is
somehow some autonomous organism which has a collective,
nefarious mind of its own. The individuals who run companies
and government entities only have the power vended to them
by their people. Sometimes people allow an organization to
take too much power. With governments, this can be deadly
(i.e. Iraq or Nazi Germany). Open source communities only
have the power of the charity of the donors.
To seize censor authority by force, in a community of
donors, is folly. It's like seizing dry cake in ones
clenched fist, and declaring moral victory as is separates
and crumbles before you. The contributors will not protest,
they will simply go away. This happened when OpenBSD broke
away from NetBSD. All things that reverse entropy, take
energy to do so. In open source, that energy is donated, in
the efforts of the willing. Surprisingly, you are right in
that KDE did not violate his freedom of speech, as he has
been able to voice his position freely. What they did was
insult him by summary deletion.
You also say he is perfectly free to leave if he doesn't
agree with the community. This is half true. Yes he has a
right to leave. No, the community has no right to do
anything if it is not being represented properly. It may
have the authority, but not the right.
The point of contention here, was whether Neil was
submitting his credit to the military under KDE's generic
standard:
"Here are the list of entities who are responsible for KDE..."
or under the banner of:
"Neil Steven's, individual contributor to KDE,
gives credit to those who inspired him..."
To be honest, I don't know which category applies
here. So, I will treat them both.
If KDE's officially stated position is to leave all
politics out of their community vocabulary, then they should
exhibit that behavior without exception or prejudice.
Arguably, the EU patent issue is probably one which has a
consensus of disdain within the open source community. It is
also directly related to software, and open source. But it
is political. This case reminds us that, it is the work of
the individuals, being executed in the machines, that is
being spoken for by KDE, not the opinions of it's
contributors. It is the work, not the opinions, which will
be noticed first, by those who have passed over the
credits. If it is the intention of the 'community', as you
put it, to officially take a position on political issues,
which is not strictly neutral, then they had better erect a
referendum of their contributors, to verify that the voice
of KDE's representative staff is indeed the proxy of its
parts.
Here is the important rub. If the KDE state machine is
assuming the restrictive neutral state, taking ANY political
position, negates the right of the KDE staff to engage in
any unilateral censorship of its community members. Such
behavior, under these conditions, is clearly hypocrisy.
However, if Neil's credit's are specifically marked as his
own words, my previous post stands in force:
Those who read the credits, for any work of art, in our
fast paced world, are obviously sophisticated and
intelligent enough to understand who's voice is ringing out.
We should also be able to separate the talent from the
beliefs. I take it Neil's code was good enough for commit,
so anybody who stands up and says, "I'm no longer going to
use KDE, because it's coded by communists, or fascists or
jackbooted war mongering military thugs...", is just
cheating themselves of quality software donated for
free. Who needs them anyway.
Anybody who thinks comments in Neil's code or credits,
represent all of KDE, is either personally offended by his
opinions, or is not capable of recognizing the difference
between the community and individuals.
poe
> Again KDE-bashing from a non-contributor.
Possible Army bashing from non-military? Hypocracy anyone?
> There is no general consensus that the US
> military makes our world safer.
Says who? You?
Possible Army bashing from non-military? Hypocracy anyone?
> There is no general consensus that the US
> military makes our world safer.
Says who? You?
feder,
How egalitarian of you and the KDE project to benefit from the libertating effects of the American Armed Forces while denying that Afghanistan or Iraq has any right to live free. And if you imply that living under the Taliban or Sadam Hussein is better them then you are a blind hypocrite. Why don't they deserve it? Wrong color?
Armies can't preserve freedom? Germany, the home of KDE, was a democracy before Germans gave up their freedom to Hitler in exchange for a 'better economy'. Never mind that a few million other Germans had to be gassed so that your White Arian grand parents could have work and food. According to your thinking the Allies should have let Germany rot under the leadership of Adolf Hitler rather than invade Europe and PRESERVE freedom for the British and restore it to the Germans and French. Lets forget the Billions America spend under the Marshal Plan to restore Europe's economy. If you say that didn't help then you'll have to explain why West Germany's economy was so strong and East Germany's was stagnant. And, you'll also have to explain the exhuborant joy spontaneously expressed by millions of East Germans when the Berlin wall fell. If your feelings are typical of Europeans then maybe the next time we honor your wishes (and ignore your pleas) and let you simmer in your totalitarian 'freedom'. Given the extent to which Radical Islam has taken over parts of France your time of begging for help may come sooner than you realize.
BTW, the invasion of Iraq was approved by a UN Resolution which Germany and France voted for but didn't have the courage to enforce. You knew that, of course, but you select your 'facts' don't you?
In Europe it's really PC to hate America these days, yet people in your countries continue to migrate to 'oppressive' America for better opportunities and more hope.
You and your comrades make nice 'distinctions' between political actions, but free speech is free speech. It is NOT free speech if you can express your political views but those with whom you disagree with cannot. Maybe that's why Germany got into trouble with Hitler.
How egalitarian of you and the KDE project to benefit from the libertating effects of the American Armed Forces while denying that Afghanistan or Iraq has any right to live free. And if you imply that living under the Taliban or Sadam Hussein is better them then you are a blind hypocrite. Why don't they deserve it? Wrong color?
Armies can't preserve freedom? Germany, the home of KDE, was a democracy before Germans gave up their freedom to Hitler in exchange for a 'better economy'. Never mind that a few million other Germans had to be gassed so that your White Arian grand parents could have work and food. According to your thinking the Allies should have let Germany rot under the leadership of Adolf Hitler rather than invade Europe and PRESERVE freedom for the British and restore it to the Germans and French. Lets forget the Billions America spend under the Marshal Plan to restore Europe's economy. If you say that didn't help then you'll have to explain why West Germany's economy was so strong and East Germany's was stagnant. And, you'll also have to explain the exhuborant joy spontaneously expressed by millions of East Germans when the Berlin wall fell. If your feelings are typical of Europeans then maybe the next time we honor your wishes (and ignore your pleas) and let you simmer in your totalitarian 'freedom'. Given the extent to which Radical Islam has taken over parts of France your time of begging for help may come sooner than you realize.
BTW, the invasion of Iraq was approved by a UN Resolution which Germany and France voted for but didn't have the courage to enforce. You knew that, of course, but you select your 'facts' don't you?
In Europe it's really PC to hate America these days, yet people in your countries continue to migrate to 'oppressive' America for better opportunities and more hope.
You and your comrades make nice 'distinctions' between political actions, but free speech is free speech. It is NOT free speech if you can express your political views but those with whom you disagree with cannot. Maybe that's why Germany got into trouble with Hitler.
Why make it so complicated? Politics that have nothing to do with Open Source (like the US Army) shouldn't be mixed with Open Source. Politics that does (like sofware patents) should. Is that so difficult to understand?
I do completely agree with you, but as the author points out, maybe KDE should have a similar series of statements like Debian does?
In other words, maybe they should say this instead of claiming to be apolitical.
In other words, maybe they should say this instead of claiming to be apolitical.
There is little question the comment was in bad taste. Nobody, not even Americans, deserve the type of freedom visited on Afghanistan and Iraq.
Just as a comment saying "the attack on Sept. 11 was a just response to years of repression and slaughter by an imperial power" would undoubtedly be deemed in bad taste by most.
Does it belong in KDE? Obviously not.
Just as a comment saying "the attack on Sept. 11 was a just response to years of repression and slaughter by an imperial power" would undoubtedly be deemed in bad taste by most.
Does it belong in KDE? Obviously not.
To compare Neil Stevens credit remarks to "the attack on Sept. 11..." is idiotic. They are so far apart and so different it'd be like comparing the Sun to Pluto.
As for the "rightness" if their inclusion in KDE, that remains to be seen. Tom Chance's editorial brings up something that is very critical for the Open Licensed Software community to start recognizing and acting upon. The KDE community was acting completely hypocritically in denying Neil's credits yet participating in the "Web Out". They, as well as everyone else, need to get their ducks in a line in a hurry.
Tom is 100% right about Debian and their social contract. The rest of the Open Licensed Software community had better wake up to the real world very quickly or they are going to be very sorry.
Not so far apart really. Terrorism is terrorism whether conducted by an army or by members of a cultural, religious or nationalist group. The idiots are those who can't see the similarity.
This is precisely my point. People become reactionary to certain comments and defend other comments on freedom of speech principles. If the u.s. army brings freedom then truly War is Peace, Slavery is Freedom, Ignorance is Knowledge. And how idiotic is that?
Americans might feel that it is ok to include their bullshit patriotism in everything they do but don't expect the world community to accept that.
This is precisely my point. People become reactionary to certain comments and defend other comments on freedom of speech principles. If the u.s. army brings freedom then truly War is Peace, Slavery is Freedom, Ignorance is Knowledge. And how idiotic is that?
Americans might feel that it is ok to include their bullshit patriotism in everything they do but don't expect the world community to accept that.
First let me state that I dont agree 100% with what our country did to rectify the situation, 'An eye for an eye and we all become blind', and with that....
My question to you is this. When is it ok do defend your own country? Under yours, and other peoples thoughts someone (or army) could come inside your country, blow some stuff up and then run to another country, CLAIM that they did it, and fear no retaliation? And damn straight we are going throw patriotism in our actions. If we didn't then we wouldn't be americans. Last I checked we don't need to ask other countries about how we 'feel'.
Now again, I don't agree 100% with how our country responded and witht the fact that we still have troops over there. BUT I do think that we shouldn't have just sat around with our thumbs up our ass and say, 'Oh that sucked, but thats ok, we'll sit here and do nothing'.
Also, to all those out there that know better, what would you have done in the presidents place? How would you confront your own country after such a devestation? How would you treat those that came to your home and killed thousands innocents? When would decide to act? After anouther Sept. 11? or how about 2 more? Would that be enough?
My question to you is this. When is it ok do defend your own country? Under yours, and other peoples thoughts someone (or army) could come inside your country, blow some stuff up and then run to another country, CLAIM that they did it, and fear no retaliation? And damn straight we are going throw patriotism in our actions. If we didn't then we wouldn't be americans. Last I checked we don't need to ask other countries about how we 'feel'.
Now again, I don't agree 100% with how our country responded and witht the fact that we still have troops over there. BUT I do think that we shouldn't have just sat around with our thumbs up our ass and say, 'Oh that sucked, but thats ok, we'll sit here and do nothing'.
Also, to all those out there that know better, what would you have done in the presidents place? How would you confront your own country after such a devestation? How would you treat those that came to your home and killed thousands innocents? When would decide to act? After anouther Sept. 11? or how about 2 more? Would that be enough?
Re:Politics of expression [ALL OFF TOPIC]
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 07, 2003 05:23 PM
> My question to you is this. When is it ok do defend your own country? Under yours, and
> other peoples thoughts someone (or army) could come inside your country, blow some
> stuff up and then run to another country, CLAIM that they did it, and fear no retaliation?
Well, people need to remain objective.
There had been *evidence* that the Taliban supported and hid Osama bin Laden.
When the US struck against them the world had been behind them and with them.
For example, there are *still* German troops in Afghanistan that try to keep the country secure and stable. But do you remember the hate campaign in the US against Germany and France during the war against Iraq?
This was very ugly, and you can still feel the results if you read all the posts in this forum. There's so much irrational hatred and contempt in the posts of Americans especially against the French.
But Germany still supports the American cause in Afghanistan!
Because it's *justified* in the eyes of the world.
But the Iraq was different. There was no connection between 9/11 and Iraq.
The US and UK twisted the truth about the weapons
of mass destruction and painted a picture of a global threat.
Did you read the news about how Tony Blair is currently under political fire because
his vast exaggerations came out?
> Also, to all those out there that know better, what would you have done in the presidents
> place? How would you confront your own country after such a devestation? How would
> you treat those that came to your home and killed thousands innocents? When would
> decide to act? After anouther Sept. 11? or how about 2 more? Would that be enough?
Of course it's not easy and often a dilemma.
There's only one problem with fighting back: Many times a seemingly justified retaliation measure kills lots of innocents and sometimes even more than the original attack. Remember the incident where US troops bombarded a wedding in Afghanistan?
It's then put down as "collateral damage" and everyone is sorry,
but that doesn't resurrect the dead children.
> other peoples thoughts someone (or army) could come inside your country, blow some
> stuff up and then run to another country, CLAIM that they did it, and fear no retaliation?
Well, people need to remain objective.
There had been *evidence* that the Taliban supported and hid Osama bin Laden.
When the US struck against them the world had been behind them and with them.
For example, there are *still* German troops in Afghanistan that try to keep the country secure and stable. But do you remember the hate campaign in the US against Germany and France during the war against Iraq?
This was very ugly, and you can still feel the results if you read all the posts in this forum. There's so much irrational hatred and contempt in the posts of Americans especially against the French.
But Germany still supports the American cause in Afghanistan!
Because it's *justified* in the eyes of the world.
But the Iraq was different. There was no connection between 9/11 and Iraq.
The US and UK twisted the truth about the weapons
of mass destruction and painted a picture of a global threat.
Did you read the news about how Tony Blair is currently under political fire because
his vast exaggerations came out?
> Also, to all those out there that know better, what would you have done in the presidents
> place? How would you confront your own country after such a devestation? How would
> you treat those that came to your home and killed thousands innocents? When would
> decide to act? After anouther Sept. 11? or how about 2 more? Would that be enough?
Of course it's not easy and often a dilemma.
There's only one problem with fighting back: Many times a seemingly justified retaliation measure kills lots of innocents and sometimes even more than the original attack. Remember the incident where US troops bombarded a wedding in Afghanistan?
It's then put down as "collateral damage" and everyone is sorry,
but that doesn't resurrect the dead children.
I do agree that a lot of how we, Americans, acted in certain cases towards other countries were not very...erm...appealing. It's to bad though that this minority of people are usually the loudest and the most heard and usually they are the most un-informed and ignorant of the bunch too. You don't often get people in the nightly news saying the support what is going on or that they dont hate someone. Unfortunatly the media doesn't like these 'boring' stories.
As I said in my original post, I don't agree with every thing that has happened, but also, I do think it is a good thing that Suddam and his blood hungry brigade are no longer in power. It's just a shame that it had to happen under such a cloud of untruths, and as you said, exaggerations.
And with the wedding incident, shit happens. As horrible as that sounds war is war and people will die. Most of the time its only fighting forces but we all know mistakes are made, we are only human after all.
As I said in my original post, I don't agree with every thing that has happened, but also, I do think it is a good thing that Suddam and his blood hungry brigade are no longer in power. It's just a shame that it had to happen under such a cloud of untruths, and as you said, exaggerations.
And with the wedding incident, shit happens. As horrible as that sounds war is war and people will die. Most of the time its only fighting forces but we all know mistakes are made, we are only human after all.
Re:Politics of expression [ALL OFF TOPIC]
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 07, 2003 09:08 PMWell, #1, I would have focused on Afghanistan and not gotten oil/power hungry.
The world community didn't have a huge problem with the war in afghanistan. It was highly supported and we had a large amount of solidarity built up with other nations. Now, with our foolish, clearly oligarchically based actions, we've squandered all of that...
So, what would I do if I were president?
I would have focused on shoring up the afghanistan problem. We're not finished there... even though Rummy and Dubya have said that we were... then again, they said that hostilities were over in Iraq as well, and look where we are now after these stupid chickenhawks "declared" an end to hostilities.
Had we stayed in Afghanistan, these things would not be an issue. But since our military is representing corporate interest and exploitation right now (note, I'm not blaming the soldiers, and any argument with my statement is factually innacurate here - there is no doubt that corporate neo-conservative interests are at work here) we've lost all of that support.
Now, over the next few years, the taliban will probably come back stronger and we'll lose Iraq to a fundamentalist shia government. Our actions have lessened the feud between the shia and the suni and many who were once fighting, are now forming defense pacts and blood oaths against us.
"Under yours, and other peoples thoughts someone (or army) could come inside your country, blow some stuff up and then run to another country, CLAIM that they did it, and fear no retaliation"
Well how many times has the u.s. done that? Let's see they invaded Panama, abducted the head of state and took him back to the u.s. to try him. Would the u.s. stand for that?
The u.s. funded the Contras in Nicaragua. There would have been no armed opposition in htat country if it were not for the u.s. How if someone created and funded a guerrila army in the u.s. Would that be alright? Would that be an opportunity for self-determiunation for the u.s.
In Afghanistan people die every day as the Taliban demonized and overthrown no longer hold sway. Before the invasion there was a decade of peace and there were schools, hospitals and safety. Was it free or a place I would want to live? No. Now it is still not free and people every day are killed in the chaos that the u.s. made.
In Iraq there is even less safety and services like garbage removal, water and power are not being returned to even the worst levels during Saddams reign. Children are 50% of the population and they are dying by the hundreds of thousands from lack of nutrition, clean water and medical services. That was before the latest invasion, during the embargo, and things have gotten worse since.
These are just a few examples, there are many, many more extending back to the 1800's. The u.s. has consistently removed governments and leaders to replace them with chaos, military juntas(Chile, Argentina), roaming death squads(Guatemala, El Salvador) and backed brutal dictators(Pinochet, Somoza, Saddam Hussein, Batista).
These are facts. The desire of americans to see there country as a liberating source of freedom and hope is understandable. Who wouldn't want to believe that? The facts however show that your leaders are lying to you and fucking over the rest of the world because they have the power to do it. I don't expect that to change but it has lately become so blatant that they are not even trying very hard to cover their lies and naked aggression. It is time for americans to wake up and say what about this democracy we are supposed to have? Can the people have a say in what our country and military do to the rest of the world or is that just for the elite to decide?
Well how many times has the u.s. done that? Let's see they invaded Panama, abducted the head of state and took him back to the u.s. to try him. Would the u.s. stand for that?
The u.s. funded the Contras in Nicaragua. There would have been no armed opposition in htat country if it were not for the u.s. How if someone created and funded a guerrila army in the u.s. Would that be alright? Would that be an opportunity for self-determiunation for the u.s.
In Afghanistan people die every day as the Taliban demonized and overthrown no longer hold sway. Before the invasion there was a decade of peace and there were schools, hospitals and safety. Was it free or a place I would want to live? No. Now it is still not free and people every day are killed in the chaos that the u.s. made.
In Iraq there is even less safety and services like garbage removal, water and power are not being returned to even the worst levels during Saddams reign. Children are 50% of the population and they are dying by the hundreds of thousands from lack of nutrition, clean water and medical services. That was before the latest invasion, during the embargo, and things have gotten worse since.
These are just a few examples, there are many, many more extending back to the 1800's. The u.s. has consistently removed governments and leaders to replace them with chaos, military juntas(Chile, Argentina), roaming death squads(Guatemala, El Salvador) and backed brutal dictators(Pinochet, Somoza, Saddam Hussein, Batista).
These are facts. The desire of americans to see there country as a liberating source of freedom and hope is understandable. Who wouldn't want to believe that? The facts however show that your leaders are lying to you and fucking over the rest of the world because they have the power to do it. I don't expect that to change but it has lately become so blatant that they are not even trying very hard to cover their lies and naked aggression. It is time for americans to wake up and say what about this democracy we are supposed to have? Can the people have a say in what our country and military do to the rest of the world or is that just for the elite to decide?
Re:Politics of expression [ALL OFF TOPIC]
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 08, 2003 06:42 AM
You act as though this kind of thing is limited to just the US, and that every other country would NEVER EVER do such horrible things! AND that only bad things have come from the US military. If your views are really this narrow and closed then I feel sorry for you and the other's like you, as I know there are more out there.
People really have to look around to see how similar every one else is to themselves and not to judge from a top a soap box.
Although I will say, the US has made mistakes and errored in decisions. Guess what? This wont be the last mistake we make or any one else makes. There will NEVER be a perfect government in any country. All governments seek power, and with power comes coruption, we the little people, will have to learn to deal with it in more productive ways.
And, I say again, these types of actions are not limited to the US. Almost ALL countries have a history filled with things that they shouldn't have done, and the US is no different.
People really have to look around to see how similar every one else is to themselves and not to judge from a top a soap box.
Although I will say, the US has made mistakes and errored in decisions. Guess what? This wont be the last mistake we make or any one else makes. There will NEVER be a perfect government in any country. All governments seek power, and with power comes coruption, we the little people, will have to learn to deal with it in more productive ways.
And, I say again, these types of actions are not limited to the US. Almost ALL countries have a history filled with things that they shouldn't have done, and the US is no different.
Re:Politics of expression [ALL OFF TOPIC]
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 08, 2003 03:01 PM
"Under yours, and other peoples thoughts someone (or army) could come inside your country, blow some stuff up and then run to another country, CLAIM that they did it, and fear no retaliation"
Well how many times has the u.s. done that? Let's see they invaded Panama, abducted the head of state and took him back to the u.s. to try him. Would the u.s. stand for that?
-- I am an American. I have a lot of family in Panama. Nobody with a soul misses Noriega. Nobody. Period.
We can all stand on our soapboxes and bitch that America is the Evil Empire, while others are killed in the middle of the night, dragged from their homes by masked men, never to be seen by their families again. People who have never seen a death squad, never trembled at night wondering if you will survive the week, are quick to condemn those who choose to act.
*SANE* Americans believe the greatest evil is to not do anything when you know you should. This sometimes leads to doing the wrong thing, and that can be terribly regrettable, and have a horrendous negative impact on real human lives. But to not act at all is to implicitly condemn a decade of people to a torturous death.
Now, you can sit in your comfy chair, convinced of your moral superiority, and watch hundreds of people die, because it does not really affect you. After all, they are just {Panamanians, Afghanis, Iraqi's, Rwandan's, etc...}.
I'm not capable of doing that. Call me a neo-conservative big-corporation lackey monster, but I have an overwhelming respect for human life that apparently you do not. Even if I don't know that person. Even if they worship a different God than me. Even if they live three thousand miles away. And yes, even if they are French.
Because I realize that in real world terms, 150 deaths ruled collateral damage beats 15000 per year in a secret prison under Saddam's palace. 1500 deaths ruled collateral damage beats 1500 newlywed wives raped by one of Saddam's henchmen just for fun.
But you are right, Americans are all fat and lazy, have absolutely no regard for international law, and have no taste in food. Thank God you are there to set us straight. We have no knowledge of our government lying to us, because we are too stupid to see it. Thank God you can show us the truth! We have no independant forms of media that can enlighten us like the governnment run press in most european countries. We have no way of knowing what is really going on in the world outside of what our government spoon feeds us every night. We have no alternative but to blindly believe everything we are told because we are kept ignorant in order for the evil corporations to simply make us slaves to buy their products. Thank you for opening my eyes!
In short, unless you are ready to do something besides swim in your own magnificence, don't complain that sometimes we mess up. Try doing it better yourself.
Well how many times has the u.s. done that? Let's see they invaded Panama, abducted the head of state and took him back to the u.s. to try him. Would the u.s. stand for that?
-- I am an American. I have a lot of family in Panama. Nobody with a soul misses Noriega. Nobody. Period.
We can all stand on our soapboxes and bitch that America is the Evil Empire, while others are killed in the middle of the night, dragged from their homes by masked men, never to be seen by their families again. People who have never seen a death squad, never trembled at night wondering if you will survive the week, are quick to condemn those who choose to act.
*SANE* Americans believe the greatest evil is to not do anything when you know you should. This sometimes leads to doing the wrong thing, and that can be terribly regrettable, and have a horrendous negative impact on real human lives. But to not act at all is to implicitly condemn a decade of people to a torturous death.
Now, you can sit in your comfy chair, convinced of your moral superiority, and watch hundreds of people die, because it does not really affect you. After all, they are just {Panamanians, Afghanis, Iraqi's, Rwandan's, etc...}.
I'm not capable of doing that. Call me a neo-conservative big-corporation lackey monster, but I have an overwhelming respect for human life that apparently you do not. Even if I don't know that person. Even if they worship a different God than me. Even if they live three thousand miles away. And yes, even if they are French.
Because I realize that in real world terms, 150 deaths ruled collateral damage beats 15000 per year in a secret prison under Saddam's palace. 1500 deaths ruled collateral damage beats 1500 newlywed wives raped by one of Saddam's henchmen just for fun.
But you are right, Americans are all fat and lazy, have absolutely no regard for international law, and have no taste in food. Thank God you are there to set us straight. We have no knowledge of our government lying to us, because we are too stupid to see it. Thank God you can show us the truth! We have no independant forms of media that can enlighten us like the governnment run press in most european countries. We have no way of knowing what is really going on in the world outside of what our government spoon feeds us every night. We have no alternative but to blindly believe everything we are told because we are kept ignorant in order for the evil corporations to simply make us slaves to buy their products. Thank you for opening my eyes!
In short, unless you are ready to do something besides swim in your own magnificence, don't complain that sometimes we mess up. Try doing it better yourself.
I agree Political comments should now be allowed, especially if the majority of the community disagrees with it. People like Neal, should at the very least be chastised from making such comments and discouraged from making future political comments that might differ from the rest of the community. If he cannot keep his opinions to himself, we should make it clear that he is not welcome.
The preceding statement was made with tounge in cheek for those dunces who thought I might be serious.
The preceding statement was made with tounge in cheek for those dunces who thought I might be serious.
hey,
you're all missing the point, the author used the KDE Army credit incedent as an example of politics mixing with Open/Free Software communities.
but this is not the issue at hand.
the issue at hand is that many in the Open Source camp insist that they are apolitical, some even claim to be free of ideology.
the author's point is it is not possible to be apolitical and its better to accept that politics are part of everyday life and no large community can live without political issues both internal and external.
by accepting this organized FLOSS communities can start discussing how much politics is too much politics.
for instance the GNU project and the FSF being by nature political organizations aiming at social change have well defined boundaries, while RMS and others have strong political opinions in various issues the FSF and GNU only take positions in what affects Free Software users and Developers.
Debian have an even more verbose system where it is very clear how internal politics should be handled.
the KDE case is just showing that even for people who believe themselves apolitical some issues are so compelling (ie software patents) that they have to make a stand.
you're all missing the point, the author used the KDE Army credit incedent as an example of politics mixing with Open/Free Software communities.
but this is not the issue at hand.
the issue at hand is that many in the Open Source camp insist that they are apolitical, some even claim to be free of ideology.
the author's point is it is not possible to be apolitical and its better to accept that politics are part of everyday life and no large community can live without political issues both internal and external.
by accepting this organized FLOSS communities can start discussing how much politics is too much politics.
for instance the GNU project and the FSF being by nature political organizations aiming at social change have well defined boundaries, while RMS and others have strong political opinions in various issues the FSF and GNU only take positions in what affects Free Software users and Developers.
Debian have an even more verbose system where it is very clear how internal politics should be handled.
the KDE case is just showing that even for people who believe themselves apolitical some issues are so compelling (ie software patents) that they have to make a stand.
Stevens, as an individual, has a perfect right to his views. The question is whether any one individual's views should be associated with KDE as a whole. If Stevens wants to make a public statement of his views, he is completely free to do so on the net, through the press or any other channel open to him as an INDIVIDUAL.
If his work is included in a communal undertaking like KDE, the individual rights of ALL the contributors come into play. Thus if a consensus exists within KDE that , for example, software patents are a bad thing, KDE may agree as a group to protest.
Since the role of the US Army is clearly a matter of international controversy, it is unlikely that such a consensus could exist on this issue. The rights of those within KDE who disagree therefore come into play.
Freedom implies a sensitivity to the rights of the community as much as to the rights of its individual members.
If his work is included in a communal undertaking like KDE, the individual rights of ALL the contributors come into play. Thus if a consensus exists within KDE that , for example, software patents are a bad thing, KDE may agree as a group to protest.
Since the role of the US Army is clearly a matter of international controversy, it is unlikely that such a consensus could exist on this issue. The rights of those within KDE who disagree therefore come into play.
Freedom implies a sensitivity to the rights of the community as much as to the rights of its individual members.
Re:Distinction: Individual & Community
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 07, 2003 11:11 PM
Hey! How dare you be so reasonable! We're trying to run a flamewar here, and you come in making SENSE? You pinko!
(Geez, I can't believe there are some relics who still use that term. Maybe I should ask my dad if he's still got some bellbottoms I can wear. Everything old is new again.)
(Geez, I can't believe there are some relics who still use that term. Maybe I should ask my dad if he's still got some bellbottoms I can wear. Everything old is new again.)
A distinction between the US Army and the Soldiers
Posted by: Joe Klemmer on September 06, 2003 10:58 PM
<RANT>
I'd like to make a side comment on this. I grew up with, lived with, worked with and continue to work with and for the US Department of Defense (primarily the US Army). Hell, I was born in an Army Hospital in Germany. Over the years I have seen many good and bad things done by the decision makers of the Army. From the President to the Joint Chiefs down to individual theater commanders. The current policy that this administration is enacting using the Military is questionable at best. However, don't blame the soldiers for these circumstances. They are not the policy makers. They are not the driving force. They are the soldiers, the guys and gals who are fighting and dying for all of us. Yes, I said all of us! Every man, woman and child on this planet who is free to make their lives as they wish ows a great debt to these people. Everyone living in what used to be Western Europe should give gratitude to these soldiers. If it weren't for them we would not be able to even think about Open Licensed Software. Hell, we'd be lucky if we were able to think for ourselves at all. I've personally known soldiers who were killed while trying to free people in this world. The stigma that has been placed on the US Military members since the Korean war has been overly harsh and critical. While it's true that some soldiers and some commanders have done some very bad things in the name of combat, this number is ve
I'd like to make a side comment on this. I grew up with, lived with, worked with and continue to work with and for the US Department of Defense (primarily the US Army). Hell, I was born in an Army Hospital in Germany. Over the years I have seen many good and bad things done by the decision makers of the Army. From the President to the Joint Chiefs down to individual theater commanders. The current policy that this administration is enacting using the Military is questionable at best. However, don't blame the soldiers for these circumstances. They are not the policy makers. They are not the driving force. They are the soldiers, the guys and gals who are fighting and dying for all of us. Yes, I said all of us! Every man, woman and child on this planet who is free to make their lives as they wish ows a great debt to these people. Everyone living in what used to be Western Europe should give gratitude to these soldiers. If it weren't for them we would not be able to even think about Open Licensed Software. Hell, we'd be lucky if we were able to think for ourselves at all. I've personally known soldiers who were killed while trying to free people in this world. The stigma that has been placed on the US Military members since the Korean war has been overly harsh and critical. While it's true that some soldiers and some commanders have done some very bad things in the name of combat, this number is ve
We are all politicians
Posted by: gila_catur on September 06, 2003 05:09 PMFrom where I see, the KDE seems to dictate what is acceptable politically or not. If they are so damn apolitical what's with the protest against s/ware patents?
In order for GNU/Linux Open Source to be accepted, be excellent technically-wise is insufficient you will have to talk the talk and walk the walk.....of politicians. In short, you have got to get the lobbying machinery going.
Eric
#