Re: [vox] Stallman on Slashdot
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [vox] Stallman on Slashdot
On Tue, 21 May 2002, Peter Jay Salzman wrote:
> in the interests of not contuing this thread for TOO much longer, i'm
> only replying to the points i feel strongest about:
Oh come one Peter, don't slow up on me now.
> not "he". "it". the free software foundation. i could be wrong, but i
> think he wants the FSF to have recognition, not necessarily himself.
You are wrong. He associates and is effectively the center of mass for the
FSF and everything there is done with his tacit involvement.
> i understand this is based not on knowledge, but conjecture. i don't
> think anyone here really knows the truth other than RMS himself.
I think I know enough folks close to him who I will talk to to assume
> > a flying, land-based or nautical fuck. He feels put off so he compounds
> > it by behaving in a way that guarantees being marginalized even
> > more. Good, soon maybe he will totally go off the deep end and be ignored
> > to the point of banishment.
> maybe you feel that way, but certainly not me. the work being done on
> gcc to make it C99 compliant has had a *direct* consequence on my life
> as a scientist.
Fine. But that doesn't speak to RMS's lame ramblings as much as the one
part of him I do respect...his technical legacy (and I associate the
license model as part of that, not the morality play attached to it in his
> > On civility:
> point taken. so i can discount his words as much as your own. ;-)
Well, that tactic has certainly worked for me, but I'm an elitist anyway.
> really. i'm not an RMS groupie; i just really appreciate his work.
You know Peter, this I don't buy, unless you are mellowing with age
(which is another idea I'm not entirely sold on). You have been an
apologist for almost anything out of the man's mouth since I've known
you. Since when did you become so distanced and pragmatic?
> > Actually its a testament/protest to the intractability and annoying nature
> > of RMS.
> i disagree. it's beyond silly. a work stands or falls on its own
> merit. not on the personality of its creator.
I certainly do not. A personality directly affects someones work:
Think of Feynmans childlike exuberance and playfulness and curiosity,
Linus's self-effacing tenacity, Egon Schieles ability to plumb the depths
of his own despair for his art (he made Van Gogh seem like a wellbutrin
addict), Mappelthorpe, De Gaul, Farrakhan....personalities have been/are
many times associated (and often rightfully so) withthe organizations they
foster/create or the work they produce.
> it sounds like you obsess as much on RMS as he obsesses on the
> "GNU/linux" thing.
No, he (like numerous other topics, like numerous political figures and
celebrities) are excellent fodder for my venting (an excellent catharsis,
> > Can you seperate RMS from his license?
> yes. anyone who can't has no business licensing software; they should
> create their work and find a lawyer to take care of the license.
Strangely enough, thats what Eben Moglen does for RMS and his
license. Thank you.
> > The two are so tightly woven
> > togther perception wise (and perception is as good as reality to most
> > folks)
> that doesn't make it right.
No, but just because it isn't "right" doesn't ,mean that it isn't there.
> it just demonstrates the dictum "the masses
> are asses". unfortunately, this indicates that mandrake, raster, horms
> and san mehat (who should know better) fall into this catagory. very
> unfortunate. :-(
No, it means they choose to not support attitudes that they don't agree
with (so at worst they are even with RMS).
vox mailing list