Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 26th Aug 2009 22:23 UTC
GNU, GPL, Open Source When Windows Vista was launched, the Free Software Foundation started its BadVista campaign, which was aimed at informing users about what the FSF considered user-restrictive features in Vista. Luckily for the FSF, Vista didn't really need a bad-mouthing campaign to fail. Now that Windows 7 is receiving a lot of positive press, the FSF dusted off the BadVista drum, and gave it a fresh coat of paint.
Thread beginning with comment 380912
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
FSF become communist
by uray on Thu 27th Aug 2009 11:16 UTC
Member since:

if they (FSF) want people to ditch microsoft products, why don't they focus on quality of their product instead of using bullsh*t propaganda like this...

the people have their own reasons to use commercial or microsoft product, and most people have difficulty to use FSF softwares like Linux...

Reply Score: 1

RE: FSF become communist
by Soulbender on Thu 27th Aug 2009 11:59 in reply to "FSF become communist"
Soulbender Member since:

Wow, sure took long for the first stupid, inaccurate communism comment to show up.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: FSF become communist
by Coxy on Thu 27th Aug 2009 12:07 in reply to "RE: FSF become communist"
Coxy Member since:


You dumb americans don't know anything about communism. You just believe anything your stupid leaders tell you about communism, you even try and use it as an insult in forums... like it's something bad!

I expect you also call people who have different views than yourself Hitler?

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: FSF become communist
by sbergman27 on Thu 27th Aug 2009 14:33 in reply to "RE: FSF become communist"
sbergman27 Member since:

Wow, sure took long for the first stupid, inaccurate communism comment to show up.

Well... here we need to make a distinction between how RMS and a minority of Linux advocates think, and what that greater community thinks. (Always keeping in mind the dangers of generalizing, of course.)

RMS does believe that closed source is *wrong* and that people should not be able to do proprietary software, and has made that clear on several occasions. In his view, people should *have to* share any code for binaries they distribute. When you think about it, and despite the "common wisdom" on the matter in our community, that is a very communistic attitude. (At this point, I should note that communism is nothing more than an economic system based on a particular philosophy, and should not be confused with the totalitarian governments which, in practice, have often accompanied it for some reason.)

Of course, RMS can't impose his essentially communistic viewpoint and system on the rest of us. So he's been forced to work within a capitalist system, using the capitalist tools available. Hence GPL is grounded in capitalist principles out of necessity. And I think most of us are happy about that.

So while I think that there is not much of a basis for describing the general Linux community as communist... and while the GPL itself is a "tit for tat" agreement, voluntarily entered into by its users, and essentially capitalist in nature, if not so completely so in spirit... I think that it is perfectly legitimate to describe Richard's views, and thus the views of the FSF in general, as being communistic in nature.

Edit: My words "Richard's views, and thus the views of the FSF", above, were selected carefully. As I recall that during the year of GPLv3 debate, Richard made it clear that he, and he alone would make the decisions. It seems that at the FSF, some animals are more equal than others. And so perhaps the FSF microcosm gives us some clue as to *why* totalitarian governments tend to be associated with communistic economic systems, and how that comes about. Just a thought.

Edited 2009-08-27 14:43 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3