Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 24th Sep 2009 13:35 UTC, submitted by Hiev
If you don't like personal, blog-style reporting, you might want to skip this item. A few days ago, during a speech at Software Freedom Day in Boston, Richard Stallman has, at least in my book, crossed a line that I thought he would never cross.
Thread beginning with comment 385930
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-22
Member since:2006-01-03
Member since:2009-09-24
So RMS's claim is that Miguel De Icaza was once a great hero to the Free Software movement, but now is working against it.
QFT
Not sure though if I completely agree with RMS, but he has also been the first to see actions or opinions that could undermine the freedoms he aspires.
The Mono debate is an example: I believe RMS's opinion was the following: Mono itself is a great open source tool to work with C#, but the language is controlled by Microsoft. So why use Mono for your FOSS-project?
Member since:2006-02-15
The Mono debate is an example: I believe RMS's opinion was the following: Mono itself is a great open source tool to work with C#, but the language is controlled by Microsoft. So why use Mono for your FOSS-project?
The answer is very very simple: it's a matter of taste. Some people just happen to like coding in C# and they should be allowed to do that.
Member since:2005-06-29
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
1997-10-01
Thom, I think your comments missed the point a bit. Now I don't agree with RMS at all, but cataloging all the things that Miguel De Icaza has done for Free Software in the past is a big part of RMS's point. You usually aren't considered to be a traitor to a cause unless you were at one point a major player in that cause.
Here in the US, our most famous traitor was Benedict Arnold. Every schoolchild knows that Benedict Arnold betrayed his country and helped the British during the American Revolutionary War.
But generally only students of history are aware that Arnold's treason was so noteworthy only because he was one of America's finest generals, and a bona fide war hero. He distinguished himself in battle and was even gravely wounded at one point. It was only after he was passed over for promotion and recognition for years, and witnessed pervasive corruption in the fledgling American government that he decided to switch sides and accept a position in the British Army. If his plot hadn't been discovered in advance, America easily could have lost the war.
So RMS's claim is that Miguel De Icaza was once a great hero to the Free Software movement, but now is working against it. Hence, traitor. Again, I strongly disagree.