Oleg Goldshmidt wrote:
Shachar Shemesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
You are just drawing the line somewhere else.
I wholeheartedly agree with that - it's a line-drawing game
..
Does that mean that you draw the line wherever the law goes? I'm not talking about breaking the law, mind you. Just lobying for the law to change (a legitimate democratic right).I choose to draw the line beyond fair use because fair use is an established legal principle that would be a real pity to abolish.
Leaving the nitpicking comment that any defined view is a particular one, I don't understand what you have against our current strategy, or why did you exclaim that first statement saying "I will not be a part of it". It seems like our current "Hamakor" strategy is the same as you suggest.Hamakor was founded to give all of these opinions a voice.Please don't distort what I said. I said I would be glad if Hamakor would provide an opportunity for everybody to express their views. I would object, and I wouldn't want to be a part of organization that would adopt a particular viewpoint as its official one.
Then talk to RMS about it. Did you see anyone from this list, or from Hamakor, doing that? And if they did, but that was under the "opinions" section?... and I consider it gross verbal abuse to appeal to a generic, noble, universal notion of freedom, after defining it as the same as one's particular point of view, to brand me (or Linus, or whoever) this or that.
This is what bothers me so much in Stallman's view of the world.I'm trying to trim the quoted sections to make readin easier. Like I said above - your problem is with RMS. Talk to me - what bothers you about Hamakor?
I am sorry, this should have gone into my response to Ira, but I hope
that whoever bothers to read one of the postings will read both.
Now, if you, as you claimed, "do not want to be a part of anyIt would be sad to me too, and if it comes to that I pledge here and
organization that pushes forward ideoligy, even if I agree with it",
then I am very sorry to say that you will probably not want to be a
member of "Hamakor". As saddening as it is to me, on a personal level,
I cannot change the society's goals because of that.
now to be as supportive of Hamakor as I can from the outside. I don't
need to be a member to do that.
Thanks, but I'm not sure I see why it should.
That last statement gets more emphesis by the fact that there is no
organization, and defenitely no society, that are not powered by
ideoligy.
I am a member of at least one organization that, to my knowledge, has no ideological creed except that people should do their work as well as they can, ethically, and professionally. If one chooses to call this ideology, it is. It's a line-drawing game.
I don't think I agee.
Not so. You are not trying to make Solaris work better. You are not trying to make Windows work better. You are also not saying "well, Linux is better at some stuff and Solaris as better at other, and that's that". You are saying "So I'll make Linux bettter....". But why make Linux better if you don't believe, because of ideoligy, that it should be better?Even when you say you want Hamakor to promote open source
software based on technical merits - that's ideoligy.
Maybe. It's an ideology of trying to make things work better. It is, IMHO, a very broad and inclusive ideology, as opposed to Stallman's.
But why is it that you believe Linux *should* be better at 16-way SMP? Why not just recommend another OS for that task and leave it at that? The only reason I can think of is ideological.The thing that makes it so is the fact that you don't stop believingAnd promoting free and open source software, in my mind, is working
it just because people prove you wrong. Linux does not have SMP
support as good as SCO, hspell is no competition to Word's Hebrew
speller.
towards making Linux better, not arguing that one should use it even
though it's worse because it will liberate you in some way, while
taking away your freedom to use a 16-way SMP machine that you may
really need to do the job.
When does an argument stop becoming practical and starts becoming ideological? This argument has absolutely nothing OpenOffice specific about it. But if I can apply it equally well to any software, without even knowing which software it is, doesn't it automatically become and ideological argument?The problem is even more acute when products such as OpenOffice are
discussed. These products are developed purely according to the
commercial development model. OpenOffice can offer just two advantages
over StarOffice:
1. 1. It is cheaper.
2. If Sun goes down, change license, want to charge more or
discontinue the product altogether, you are not left out in the rain.
This is, in fact, a purely technical argument, and has *nothing* at all with free software if free is used in Stallman's sense.
This wouldFirst - I would like to point out that I did not try to say that Stallman's four freedoms are the ultimate choice here, just that YOUR choice is ideoligically based, even if it's not Stallman's.
work perfectly even if you didn't have the freedom to redistribute the
software or derivative products, which would make it non-free software
according to Stallman. It is quite enough that you have the source and
can modify it for your own needs.
Regardless of the above, I beg to differ. If a product is to continue living after its original copyright holder dies, someone else must be able to pick up the managment. This means distributing modified copies. I think I don't need to detail how each of the other freedoms either follow suite or is also needed explicitly.
Lets take qmail as an example. It has rights 0, 1 and 2 (use, share, change), but not 3 (distribute modified versions). It makes up for that definiency by being the BEST MTA around. New features do not make it in. A company deploying qmail needs to compile their own. Sure, because the product is SO good, packagers took the bother. This is still a rather difficult state of affairs, and I think you'll agree, a problematic one. While qmail has managed to somehow survive the difficult times since DJB abandoned it, ezmlm is an example where crucial elements are missing, and there is no new official source for them. When such things happen to free software, someone else becomes the official source, and the product lives on.
Shachar
=================================================================
To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command
echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
