🚀 go-pugleaf

jbuck@forney.berkeley.edu (Joe Buck) writes:
> In article <eZ9FgB20w164w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk (From A to B) wri
> >1. Try to pass laws to make them do things your way.
> >2. Let them do things their way, but don't give them any assistance.
> >3. Tolerate opinions which differ to your own.  Give people the freedom
> >   to make their own decisions, and rely on persuasion to entice them or 
> >   educate them into doing things your way.
> >
> >The FSF approach is #1.
> 
> False.  The FSF approach is #2, and to some extent, #3

No, the FSF approach is #1, just like the hoarders' approach.  The hoarders
say "You can't un-hoard our software or we'll set our lawyers on you." 
The FSF say "You can't hoard our software or we'll set our lawyers on you."

If the FSF is really "letting hoarders do things their way", then one might
just as well argue that the hoarders are "letting the FSF do things their
way".  And I don't think you'd agree with that.

When I say that the alternative is to let hoarders do things their way but
not give them any assistance, I mean you let them do what they like with
free software, but you don't yourself spend any time assisting them.  You
don't stop them doing anything they want to do themselves, you just don't
spend time helping them.  You continue to spend time helping other people,
and it's inevitable that some of that help will be of assistance to the
hoarders AS WELL.

That's not the same as helping the hoarders, any more than giving
money to Ethiopian famine victims is the same as donating money to the
Ethiopian military  (to use a typically extreme and FSF-like analogy).
Although the former will inevitably benefit the latter as well, the acts
aren't equivalent.

> What you're advocating is that they should engage in #4: actively aid
> people who oppose their aims by letting them turn FSF software into
> commercial products: i.e. actively assist those who are fundamentally
> opposed to their philosophy.

That's not actively assisting.  That's passively assisting.  It doesn't
cost the FSF any of their time, money, or talent if they let me turn FSF
software into commercial products.  It doesn't cost them anything at all,
and they play no active part in the process -- so it isn't active assistance.

> >People like myself often look at the whole thing with a certain degree of
> >bemusement.
> 
> No, you don't.  People who look at the whole thing with a certain degree
> of bemusement don't feel compelled to write a dozen articles a day for
> months on end.

Why not?  The fact that the FSF position is just as extreme as the one it's
supposed to be an alternative to is a source of bemusement, but also a reason
to try and do something to encourage people to look for a third alternative.

> >I don't think that either commercial or "free" distribution systems
> >are the answer to every problem.  I think that there's a place for both.
> >Let the customer decide which is best.
> 
> I agree with this statement, but I think that YOU don't.  If you did,
> you'd have no objection to FSF, which is only attempting to control how
> its own code is used.

No, they also attempt to control how MY code is used if my code happens
to be used in the same program as their code.


mathew

-- 
Hail Eris! / "Our whole economy's based on fear and death; how long can we get
away with this?" --- Jello Biafra / Message for Kodak: Bring back Dan Bredy! /
PGP RSA public key available on request / Desperately seeking Negativland's U2
CD / Just another would-be Mac owner put off by Apple's monopolistic practices