🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <9301022105.AA10470@raisin-scone> tower@ai.mit.edu (Leonard H. Tower Jr.) writes:

>In retrospect, I wish we had name FSF the:
>	Software Freedom Foundation
>but it's way to late now.

How about the:
	Foundation for Software Freedom
At least the acronym is the same.  Would there be legal problems
with a name change at this point?
--
<-:(= Anthony Stieber	anthony@csd4.csd.uwm.edu   uwm!uwmcsd4!anthony

tower@ai.mit.edu (Leonard H. Tower Jr.) writes:
> In retrospect, I wish we had name FSF the:
> 	Software Freedom Foundation
> but it's way to late now.

Why?


mathew

tower@ai.mit.edu (Leonard H. Tower Jr.) writes:
>> In retrospect, I wish we had name FSF the:
>> 	Software Freedom Foundation
>> but it's way to late now.

In article <yqZwwB12w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
>Why?

It would cost FSF thousands of dollars to do a name change (legal costs,
since they are an official nonprofit corporation, stationery, office
stuff, etc).

It would create a lot of confusion.  People know who FSF is; they don't
know who SFF is.

Changing to SFF wouldn't shut people like you up, since you will continue
to argue that Gnu-licensed code does not provide freedom.

No three-word name is going to be completely accurate anyway.  Why don't
you guys go off and argue with OSF about their name for a while?

If this name had been chosen early on, it might have been better, but
as Len says, it is too late now since the costs of a name change (to
any new name) outweigh the benefits.


--
Joe Buck	jbuck@ohm.berkeley.edu

			PREFACE
 
Before joining the argument, I would like it if people could get less
excited. In particular, it would be nice if M. Zelezny would not weaken
his arguments by the use of strong language to express anger.
Similarly, it would be nice if the people who disagree with his conclusions
could take the time to read his ARGUMENTS rather than just having a GUT
REACTION and reply by telling him things he obviously already knows.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           SUMMARY

By preventing other people from writing programs,
by unfair competition, by encouraging others  to be verbally violent,
vainglorious, intellectually dishonest, software hoarders, by 
attributing a unique role to itself, AND
	 							(MOST OF ALL)
	by encouraging BAD CODE through destruction of the natural
	relationship between a program and its author, 

	the FSF does nothing to improve our freedom.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

It seems to me that this debate is about what is freedom, and whether
the "Free Software Foundation" (FSF), globally speaking increases or decreases
everyone's freedom.

Although I think it does both, like M. ZELEZNY I feel the negative aspects
on freedom of the FSF's activities have been "shoved under the carpet"
up till now.

Rather than get into a long debate about freedom, I will define it.
PLEASE ACCEPT THE DEFINITION JUST LONG ENOUGH TO READ THE POST. 

I define freedom as THE ABILITY TO DO GOOD.

I define good as THE FULFILMENT OF ONE'S PURPOSE.

So the question is,
Does the FSF foundation, globally speaking, increase or decrease
each of our's ability to fulfil our purpose.

The positive side I see to the FSF's activity, from my own view point,
is the creation of a world wide body of vendor independent software.
This gives us the programmer the ability to "craft an environment" which
he can take with him from place to place.

I see two negative aspects to the FSF's activity.

First of all, by "dumping" a lot of "free" (and not always very good)
software on the world, they have destroyed a lot of other's people's
creativity. I know at least one personal case where this has happened.
[I have read Stallman's arguments about why this is OK & have counter-arguments]

The second negative side of the FSF's activity, as I see it, is that it
is making a lot of people behave like Stallmann.

Why do I say this is a bad thing? It is because, in my humble opinion,
Stallmann is not fulfilling his own purpose.

I see Stallmann as a remarkably talented programmer, I.E. AN ARTIST.
I see the purpose of an artist to CREATE and SHARE (up to here, I 
think he would agree).

I see creation as a pure, gratuitions act. 
In order to create the artist must have no "arriere-intentions",
i.e. no unavowed, dishonest purpose in the back of his head.

I consider that the use of verbal violence, as evidenced by the many written
pieces authored by the FSF, sullies the creative act (not pure).
The FSF packaging its products with a lot of "holier than thou",
ideological arguments (not pure, not gratuitious).
I think that the way the FSF trumpets its position all over the world is
self serving and vainglorious (idem).

Most of all, I feel that the most important qualification of an artist is to
be honest and I feel that the FSF is dishonest.

One way the FSF is dishonest is by their use of unbalanced arguments. The
FSF say "we are the good guys" and "the software hoarders" are the bad guys.
If the FSF are really the good guys, then they should be able to demonstrate
this by using only completely balanced arguments.

If you listen carefully to the FSF arguments, you will see that their
arguments are unbalanced. For example, the FSF attack their opponents
(the sofware hoarders) for things they practice themselves.

The FSF attacks ALL software patents on the basis of the fact that 
a FEW are a "perversion of the legal system."
However, the Gnu Public License (GPL) and the notion of "copyleft" is in
itself a perversion of the legal system. Take a good look at the GPL and
then compare it to any other licence (Microsoft, ATT). The "software hoarders"
license are much less constraining and paranoid than the GPL. Nor is this
the result of FSF "ideological diarrhea." The FSF licenses are written by
lawyers, good lawyers at that.

Another way the FSF is dishonest is that it incites other people to be
dishonest by stealing labour from others (their family, their employees).
I think that many contributions to GNU are the result of TACIT consent
on the part of these rather than EXPLICIT, KNOWLEDGEABLE consent. 
I think that if some of these people knew all of what allowing use of GNU
entailed for them, then they would not have the same opinion.

Stallmann started out by saying he wanted people to share software, to
have access to others people's code. The FSF has perverted this notion of
sharing from a spiritual (sharing of ideas) to a material (sharing of code)
one. Their way of sharing software does not make us a freer, just richer.
Rather than eliminate software hoarding, the FSF wants to turn us all into
software hoarders. 

Lastly, the FSF has taken up a unique role as the "master software hoarder".

One way of seeing this is that the FSF gives itself unique rights to its
software under the GPL, including the right to ultimately commercialize it.
For people to participate in the development of GCC V2.0 they had to agree
to what is basically a non-disclosure agreement.

However, the best way to see the role the FSF revendicates is to ask yourself:
could there be more than one FSF (like there is Microsoft,Borland, Novell).
Of course not!

Would the MacArthur foundation give several scholarships to
a Stallmann, a anti-Stallmann, a pro-anti Stallmann? Would the DARPA give
million dollar contracts like it does to the FSF to SEVERAL weirdo
organizations? Would the press have time for different, self serving but
contradictory organizations they way they do for the FSF? (they would just
get bored and print other things!). Would the "free software groupies" be as
motivated if there was more than one true master.

 
By transforming us from "source code creators" to "source code consumers",
Stallmann has distorted the paternity right of artists (of programs?), i.e.
	EACH PROGRAM HAS AN AUTHOR.

FSF programs are verbiose, mixed up amalgams that I am certainly happy I had
nothing to do with.

-- 
Ciaran O'Donnell/Telecom Paris - Dept INF/46 rue Barrault/75634 Paris-13 FRANCE
Phone +33 1 4581 7600	  / Fax +33 1 4581 3119    / E-mail ciaran@inf.enst.fr

In article <3087@ulysse.enst.fr>, ciaran@ulysse.enst.fr (Ciaran O'Donnell) writes:
> 
> Rather than get into a long debate about freedom, I will define it.
> PLEASE ACCEPT THE DEFINITION JUST LONG ENOUGH TO READ THE POST. 
> 
> I define freedom as THE ABILITY TO DO GOOD.

I've accepted it as long as I've read the post.

But now -- you're simply not right in your definition. As everybody
knows (hopefully ;-), freedom's just another word for nothing left to
loose.

Ha, we should start discussing about the dialectic of freedom. The
more you want, the more you loose it itself. Who has read Adorno's and
Horkheimer's ``Dialectic of enlightenment''?

--
Joachim

ciaran@ulysse.enst.fr (Ciaran O'Donnell) writes:

>However, the Gnu Public License (GPL) and the notion of "copyleft" is in
>itself a perversion of the legal system. Take a good look at the GPL and
>then compare it to any other licence (Microsoft, ATT). The "software hoarders"
>license are much less constraining and paranoid than the GPL. Nor is this
>the result of FSF "ideological diarrhea." The FSF licenses are written by
>lawyers, good lawyers at that.

I think you're letting your argument run away with you.  My license
for Microsoft Word doesn't even let me copy the program more than
once.  There is not one thing it permits that the GPL does not also
permit.
-- 
Ian Taylor | ian@airs.com | First to identify quote wins free e-mail message:
`` `The world can grow into an ordered place where all are equal before
    the law.  And the law is just.  Honest.  Without graft.'
   `Is that so important if you are starving?' ''