Linked by Michael L. Love on Mon 3rd Nov 2003 19:19 UTC
BSD and Darwin derivatives The GNU-Darwin Distribution is a free operating system and a popular source of free software for Mac OS X and Darwin-x86 users, but it is also a platform for digital activism. Founded in November of 2000, the Distribution has the stated goal of bringing software freedom to computer users of every stripe, and vigilantly defending digital liberties.
Permalink for comment
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
by dpi on Tue 4th Nov 2003 06:13 UTC

Ah, i notice politics are beeing censored on this site. Fun!

"Saying RMS is obnoxious is not name calling; it is a description of his behavior."

Stating X (where X = a person) is obnoxious without any argument IS ad hominem attack. It's not worth anything for a discussion. Just state why you don't like X, or why you find (= opinion) him/her obnoxious. Far more better for a healthy discussion...

"I'm not just repeating what I've heard. I've gone to RMS' website and read a number of his writings. I think he has a right to receive credit for his work. I do not think he should insist that everyone call Linux The Operating System "GNU/Linux"."

Why not _insisting_? Insisting on something flows from beeing certain about a thing. May one not be? One can insist by asking people. But one cannot use appeal to force, to force people (ie. "you are with us, or without us" - which is besides an appeal to force also black vs. white thinking). He can only use valid arguments, most people can only be convinced with valid arguments - arguments, beeing valid or invalid, are stated on the website for example. That's where his power lies; and he _cannot_ use his power as beeing one of the authors of GNU to give _you_ less freedom by _forcing_ you to call the OS in question GNU/Linux. That's where the power of Free Software lies. If you do not agree with calling it GNU/Linux, you can call it Linux - or whatever you want.

The GPL doesn't force you to call it X.

"RMS has different concepts of freedom confused and expects everyone else to view freedom his way. He is a religious zealot and as such is ultimately a danger to freedom, regardless of the good work he has done."

You don't HAVE to agree with RMS. One does not have to agree with another one's opinion to be his/her friend, to use a creative work from such a person, to (not) listen to arguments from one. Not listening to arguments because one is according to you a zealot is just zealotry too; used to not listen to one, used to ignore one, used to stay on your own ideals without going to a fruity discussion. Fallacy. It doesn't matter if one's communist, republican, nazi, liberal, gay or whatever. What matters is his/her arguments.

"His motive is not to make people's lives easier by making a system that is free and modifiable"

Well, it is what he has done, together with other people. Like i said already a million times the GPL does not mean you have to agree with RMS, Linus, or whoever.

"it is to make a political system that will make proprietary software illegal and punishable, in fact limiting freedom."

Source? What makes you think his political view is correlated to the GPL? What's your definition of freedom? Afaict he cannot use the GPL to ''make proprietary software illegal and punishable''. How can he?

"He can argue semantics all he wants and tell us What Freedom Really Means, but in the end it is just his opinion, and should not be shoved on the world."

Like i already explained, among other people, it CANNOT be shoved on the world with an appeal to force or any other fallacy.