Richard Stallman, industry activist and founder of the Free Software Foundation has - once again - relinquished his role as maintainer of the phenomenally successful GNU Extensible, Customizable, Display Editor (Emacs). The news was slipped out on the Emacs developers' forum and Stallman explained his reasons in a later interview.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-06
How is the original author wrong though? he wasn't being disparaging to socialism, what he is being disparaging is to the nativity of his (Stallman's) idealistic notion of software creation. Socialism and Communism are ideals which can never be achieved because it would be undermining basic human nature.
Even those who were bought up in strictly socialist/communist like environments such as the Kabutz where everything was community owned on a small scale - ended up rebelling and reverting back to freemarket capitalism, be it with a slight bent towards a social contract like concept of obligations to society as well stick to basic business fundamentals.
The issue is the idea that you can force everyone into your particular ideology. The problem with Stallman isn't his idea, but his unwillingness to even acknowledge that there are other schools of thoughts and that their ideas have as much merit as his own. That is the issue - down right arrogance more than anything else.
Edited 2008-02-27 02:23 UTC
Member since:2005-07-28
How is the original author wrong though? he wasn't being disparaging to socialism, what he is being disparaging is to the nativity of his (Stallman's) idealistic notion of software creation. Socialism and Communism are ideals which can never be achieved because it would be undermining basic human nature.
This is hardly axiomatic. And besides, my objection is that the term socialism is, as I said earlier, used to describe *anything* that (mostly Americans) don't like. If you are indeed comparing GNU to socialism, I think it's kind of odd to say that it hasn't worked, considering I'm typing this largely on a system comprised of (and compiled by) GNU tools. The idea that the GPL can't or doesn't work is ludicrous, considering we're even having a debate about it.
As for socialism, there are a fair amount of socialist countries around the globe and a lot of people who would disagree with you.
In point of fact, I don't see what GNU or the GPL has to do with socialism, which is a transitional stage of an *economic system* between capitalism and communism. How this relates in any way, shape, or form, to, say, gcc, I do not know.
Yet even if it is related, how is it the Linux kernel gets developed and released under the GPL on a regular basis if "GNU/GPL" is like socialism, and "Socialism and Communism are ideals which can never be achieved because it would be undermining basic human nature."
Unless I'm misunderstanding you, which is possible, you are using the worst possible example (GNU, which does work) to prove that socialism/communism doesn't work.
This is wildly off topic, on top of which you are equating or lumping together communism and socialism, which are two different things. You are also ignoring the fact that *kibbutzim* were Zionist entities, first and foremost.
Kibbutzim occurred in a closed environment. While you are correct that most of them evolved away from their earlier collectivist leanings, you speak categorically.
In point of fact:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samar_%28kibbutz%29
I may well be wrong, but I do now now (nor did I in 1989) share in the zeitgeist of the times that socialism was dead. As long as there is poverty on a mass scale, there will be socialism...and possibly communism.
(Incidentally, I am not a socialist or communist, in case you are wondering. I just don't like the complete misappropriation of terminology when discussing these issues.)
If Stallman has campaigned to make non-free software illegal anywhere - that is, to compel anyone to use his license or software, please quote your sources. If he has in any way, shape, or form, attempted to coerce anyone to use the GPL, please state where, because I am laboring under the understanding that he has not.
To me the GPL is like any other legally binding agreement - you create software, and you put conditions of use upon it, the same way proprietary software comes with an AUP. As a consumer, you can choose to use the software according to those terms, or not.
It is fair to engage in the tired semantic arguments about whether the GPL or BSD licenses truly grant "freedom," but to use the terms coerce, compel, or "force," as you did, is exaggeration. If you don't like the GPL, don't use the software. You are absolutely free to refuse those terms, just as you are an AUP (and unlike most AUPs, the GPL is well documented and can be perused before you "purchase" - not that you ever have to do that - the software). Likewise you are free to write your own software and choose the license (and terms) you release it under.
Stallman has hardly refused to "acknowledge" other schools of thought, either. That he doesn't find them convincing merely makes him principled - at least as principled of those who hate him and the GPL. He views closed or 'horded' software as immoral. I don't know that I buy that personally, but at the same time, it seems ridiculous for him to grant currency to a point of view he disagrees with, any more than I should endorse points of view I disagree with. I consider them, and some I buy and some I don't.
The GPL is a license freely chosen by software authors, freely adhered to by users, who can at any time stop using the software and write their own or use an alternative. It is no different in this regard than any other license.
And it *works*. However annoying this may be to those who oppose the license, here many of us sit on systems comprised largely of, or compiled by, GPL software.
Member since:2005-08-18
Sure he was. He was comparing it to Stallman's crazy-a$$ opinions.
Um, you are aware that there are a lot of successful socialist states in the world, right?
Please don't confuse socialism with communism.
Congratulations, you just described socialism. Socialism is not the opposite of capitalism. The two can, and do, co-exist successfully.
Member since:2005-07-06
"Socialism and Communism are ideals which can never be achieved because it would be undermining basic human nature."
Socialism : CANADA
Communism : CHINA
Since your lying as base to make a point , I will not adress the rest of your nonsense.
What I don't get is that for all your lies and bulshit The FSF and Stallman are not moving target , hence I submit that if you want to stop being a lying coward that you get yourself a lawyer and try and submit to court that is false use of GNU/Linux according to you is undermining your business on a daily occurence.
It would be really fun to watch your nonsense meet legality and the best lawyers and legal minds above and outside those of Microsoft.
Member since:2007-09-06
I usually stop listening the moment someone starts throwing around "Communist" and "Socialist" to describe the shared development model. It's a BS argument that is used far too often by people who don't aprove of not buying into proprietary and limiting licenses.
The proprietary model is too consume everything. One central authority holding ownership over physical goods and ideas (patents or the BS term IP). You may all use the goods for a price (devoted national servitude or in this case, money) and you may even use some of the ideas for a price but ownership must be retained by the central authority. Corporate law helps this along with the legal obligation to do what is best for the shareholders regardless of what is best for the customers. Now where have we seen that kind of government?
On the other hand, you can choose to participate in a free market where anyone with goods or services may join in even if they are not part of the boys club. Everything is not graciously provided by one single central authority. The customer may choose from a selection of competing options and in doing so, democratically votes for which option is the better of the available ones. In taking posession of those goods, they customer may then build on those goods and in turn, compete in the market or be happy that there option works for them even if it doesn't work for others.
Yet someone, FOSS is the comunist/socialist threat to life, liberty and the freedom to use your purchased hardware as you choose while the broken free market remains dominated by a single market leader that retains it's possition through synthetic market forces while barely tolerating the customers it claims to be supporting.
Don't get me wrong, MS greed and Stallman ideology are extremes on either side of the same coin. Of course he's going to come off ideological; his motivation was always ideological and it's not like he's unknown for requiring every interviewer to use gnu/linux. I personal fall somewhere inbetween the FSF ideal, OSS prduction model and the propriatery retail model (I'll pay for software if it's quality and functions justify the fee). My point is simply that this socialist/communist BS is just that; a steaming fresh patty out back of the barn that always seems to come up when someone doesn't agree with things being different from how they operate.
Member since:
2005-07-28
Socialism is apparently a word you can plug in to any concept that, (if you're an American from the US), you don't like.
What this has to do with a voluntarily chosen software license, I have no idea.
As for "dictating" terms, that's another interesting use of that word. I am clearly confused, but in a capitalist environment, parties enter into agreements and contracts by way of mutual consent, do they not?
I must have missed the part about Richard Stallman chomping on a (Cuban) cigar, with a military rifle, insisting that people interview him, with a list of demands.
Just for kicks, I would like to see the term socialism ascribed to jock itch, because jock itch, we can all agree, is one hell of a downer. Like Lenin. That guy was no fun at all. He even stuck around after he died to wig out thousands of tourists.
Edited 2008-02-27 02:12 UTC