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.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2007-01-22
what about (from http://www.fsf.org/campaigns):
EndSoftPatents.org: FSF supported campaign to eliminate software from the scope of patentability through legal and legislative action.
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-07-24
Member since:2005-07-06
they are indeed orthogonal, and you could reasonably describe RMS and the FSF's official position as fundamentalist (for instance, a 'fundamentalist' free software supporter might consider it intrinsically harmful to use non-free software - which is RMS's and the FSF's official position - while a 'moderate' free software supporter may consider it only temporarily regrettable). This is, however, not important in context. The post I was referring to unilaterally redefined evangelism as fundamentalism and then tried to use the emotional power of the word 'fundamentalism' to portray free software evangelism as a bad thing, which is just bad argumentation however you look at it.
Member since:2005-07-06
Er. No. No it isn't. It's not that at all. Go and buy a dictionary (a _good_ one, not dictionary.com).
I note that your post is missing the part where you state what you think fundamentalism *is* or reference a particular dictionary that contains a definition you would deem acceptable.
I'm sure that wasn't done just to indulge in bombastic posturing, and that you'll be correcting that omission shortly.
Except I'm talking about a mindset, rather than a practice. For that matter, how would someone even "do" fundamentalism? It's not as if there's a verb form of "fundamentalism" ("fundamentalize?") as there is with "evangelize."
I have no problem with evangelism. But when you have someone like Stallman making statements that serve no purpose but to characterize anything and anyone he dislikes as "evil" or a "traitor" - that's not evangelism, that's just a screed.
So someone isn't a fundamentalist unless they try to pass laws enforcing their beliefs? That definition would exclude even many self-described religious fundamentalists.
Member since:
2005-07-06
"In the literal sense, fundamentalism is a belief that everyone else in the world needs to adopt your particular philosophy"
Er. No. No it isn't. It's not that at all. Go and buy a dictionary (a _good_ one, not dictionary.com).
That sentence quite nicely defines _evangelism_, not fundamentalism, which is a much better word for what FSF does, and something many people don't seem to have a problem with as long as it's done through persuasion rather than compulsion. Last I checked, this is exactly what FSF does. They genuinely believe the world would be a better place if all software were free software, and they try to convince people of that, but I haven't seen them trying to pass laws to compel it. Have you?