Quoth Richard Stallman:
> In fact, I believe that one of the things about the "Open Source" movement
> that scares (or repels) Stallman the most is the fact that is indeed, to
> some degree, a synthesis between the philosophy of free software, and the
> philosophies behind proprietary software.
>
> It both repels and worries me, and Nadav is right about the reason.
> The open source movement cites the same basic values that proprietary
> software developers cite: making software "better" (in a narrow
> practical sense). They say nothing about the value of freedom itself,
> or of living an upright life.
The "problem" (with both RMS's and Nadav's) statements of the conundrum
is that they (the statements) are rife with ethical judgments. These
are so closely tied to the personal mores of the parties, that they (RMS
and Nadav) might argue a blue streak speaking on different tracks.
[snip]
> respond, "You failed to deliver on your claim. You are wrong." But
> if he has learned the value of freedom from the free software
> movement, he will say, "How dare they do this to us!"
This, in my opinion, is Richard's primary fallacy. I must add, of
course, that the fallacy is NOT Richard's fault. RMS is idealistic and
thinks (and hopes) that homo is indeed sapiens. Of course, he is right
to a degree, but only to a degree. I dispute that the vast majority of
people care or think about their freedom. Oh - they DO think about their
freedom and d care about it, but not really. Not because they do NOT
care about freedom, but because freedom, to be had, MUST be exercised.
And this activity, the exercise of freedom, is something the common homo
sapiens is, mostly, not interested in - it is inconvenient.
> If organizations decide that open source is technically advantageous,
> they may still decide that the advantage of using a popular
> proprietary package is greater. But when they come to see non-free
> software as a social problem that subjugates them and hurts the whole
> society where it is used, they may make a point of helping society to
> move away from it.
Again, this is an ETHICAL choice. Ethics are often if not almost always
subjugated to the path of least resistance - moral, financial,
ass-covering, what have you.
I am much in agreement with RMS over many issues, but I am completely in
disagreement with him over the issue of the human animal that is willing
to exercise its will to act in an ethical manner.
Marc.
--
---OFCNL
This is MY list. This list belongs to ME! I will flame anyone I want.
Official Flamer/Cabal NON-Leader [EMAIL PROTECTED]
=================================================================
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]
