Real men don't attack straw men

[Richard Stallman]

    Please note that I'm not saying gcc or emacs should not support
    windows, solaris, ultrix or any other non-free operating system. I do
    not hold these extreme ethical views. I merely question RMS's ethics.

Is there anyone here that actually believes it is wrong for free
programs to have code to run on non-free systems?  Such a person could
honestly criticize me for thinking that is acceptable.  But I have a
hunch that nobody on the list holds those extreme ethical views.  In
other words, you and others are attacking me for agreeing with all of
you on this point.

Everyone has to draw lines between cases that are partly similar, and
that is not hypocrisy.  Hypocrisy is a contradiction between one's
stated views and one's actions -- for instance, criticizing someone
else for doing that which you do not think is wrong.

    I too have used (and still use) non-free software. Not only from
    Microsoft but also from providers such as IBM, Sun, Digital, SGI and
    Apple. My personal preference is for free software, mostly OpenBSD.
    Because of practical or pragmatic reasons, I still use non-free
    software on a daily basis, yet I seek to replace these with free
    alternatives.

I appreciate that you make efforts to replace them with free software.
Many others who prefer free software, or say they do, make no efforts
to bring their use of non-free programs to an end.  They leave the job
to others and do not try to shoulder even part of it.

    Again, I hear you say 'a little pragmatism goes a long way'. Please,
    if that is not what you're saying correct me if I'm wrong but note
    that if it is what you're saying then I concur. A little pragmatism
    does go a long way. I'm not taking the extreme view that non-free
    software is evil and must be abolished. Non-free software is often
    (yet, not always) the choice of the user. I do have an issue with
    someone who takes a very extreme position but doesn't follow through.

I believe that all software should be free -- what you call a "very
extreme" position -- and I have spent 24 years working for this goal.
Free operating systems exist today because of the campaign which I
started in 1983.

I am also very pragmatic in how to campaign for this; otherwise I
would never have got this far.

My only method for achieving this goal is by convincing people, and it
is clear it will take many years to succeed (if we ever do).  Many
people do not yet want to migrate all the way to free software, and
the possibility of migrating partially as a bridge is very helpful to
the progress of free software.  I recognize this as much as anyone.

I also recognize that we cannot keep moving towards a distant goal
without keeping it in our minds and upholding it with our actions.
Otherwise, it will be forgotten, or turned into a purely theoretic
Sunday-school principle which people do not follow in life.

To reconcile these two needs, I concluded that I should generally
accept compromises and part-way measures that are beneficial in the
short term, as long as they don't undermine the long-term goal.
However, we must not advocate part-way measures that imply rejection
of the goal.

More concretely, this means that I can grant legitimacy to installing
free software, even if they don't go all the way and erase all the
non-free software on their machines.  But I cannot grant legitimacy to
installing a non-free program, because that would be treating the
problem as a solution.  Thus, I can encourage installing Emacs, GCC or
OpenOffice on Windows, but I should not encourage installing non-free
programs on GNU/Linux or BSD, just as I should not encourage
installing Windows.

It sounds like you disagree with these conclusions, and also with the
goal that they are based on.  I respect your right to your views, but
I strive to act according to my views.

[Richard Stallman]

    | >  As has been said before, the ports tree is just a
    | > scaffold, used to force third party programs (be they free or non-free
    | > and for whatever value of freedom you wish) to install into a sane and
    | > known location within the filesystem, easing the task of installing
    | > and uninstalling said program. This, in no way, encourages or promotes
    | > the use of said software (free or non-free).
    | >  
    | It is an expression of values. Personally it is a pretty clear one.

    Apparantly, someone valued the program enough to warrant the effort of
    writing a port for it.

I think you and he are talking past each other.  You're talking about
value; he's talking about values.

When you talk of seeing "value" in a non-free program, that word
presumes a certain set of values, values that value convenience more
and freedom less.

Lots of people have those values; they are the ones that lead people
to develop, distribute, and use non-free software.  And the practice
of developing, distributing, and/or using non-free software promotes
those values.

I abhor those values; I want to teach people to value freedom enough
to reject non-free software.  To do this, I must conspicuously avoid
acting the way those values would lead me to act.  That is the reason
for many of my decisions, including the decision not to recommend
distros that lead people to non-free software.

[Richard Stallman]

    He claims OpenBSD suggest the use of non-free software. After having
    used it for quite some time, such a suggestion was never made to me.

I will not argue with your statement about your personal experience.
The point is that OpenBSD distributes the ports system, and the ports
system contains installation recipes for various non-free programs
listed by name.  That in itself is a suggestion to install those
programs.  That is the suggestion I am talking about.  I said so
explicitly in my first message:

      However, its ports system does suggest non-free programs, or
    at least so I was told when I looked for some BSD variant that I could
    recommend.

If you don't like the word "suggest", we could say it "leads people
to" or "refers people to" or "helps people install" that software.
The point that I'm concerned about is not which word we use, but
rather the facts, which we now all know.  The issue is what we make of
them ethically.

I disapprove of that practice, but my goal in talking about it here
was not to argue about that.  My aim was to state what my real views
are, and thus correct inaccurate statements already about them.

Remember all the people who accused me of "lying" because at some time
I described the presence of these recipes as "the ports system
includes non-free software"?  That whole tangent was based on taking
my words out of context.  My first message had already made it clear
what I was talking about.

The people who created this tangent chose one way I described the
facts, and picked a wrong interpretation, which my first message had
already shown was not right.  In other words, they raised an imaginary
issue, and denounced me for a claim they should have known I did not
make.

[Richard Stallman]

    I doubt someone who is truly unfriendly could organize a hackathon, a
    friendly social event.

He may be perfectly friendly to others.  What is relevant is that he
tends to be unfriendly to me.

    The same argument could be made about your unfriendliness. We could not
    talk to you since you have *proven* to be unfriendly:

    http://z505.com/images/gnu-sign.png

I criticized ATI firmly when it refused to release the specs for its
chips.  I'm happy to say that in October another ATI speaker came to
MIT and announced that ATI was supporting development of free drivers.
I shook his hand.  I was also told that my protest had made an
impression at ATI, so I think it played a role in bringing about the
change in policies.

However, that was nothing on the scale of unfriendliness compared to
what Theo has said to me -- both in this discussion, and previously.
I used the word "unfriendly" as a deliberate understatement, because I
did not want to start an argument about that side issue.  (Others
chose, in a hypersensitive fashion, to do so anyway.)

I reserve my unfriendliness, such as it is, for the enemies of the
free software movement -- which does not include OpenBSD.  I have
never urged people not to use OpenBSD.  I do not campaign against
OpenBSD and never did.

[Richard Stallman]

    RMS' statement that OpenBSD endorses non-free software goes too far,

What I said is that the ports system contains recipes for installing
non-free software.  In another message in this batch I address the
question of what words to use to refer to that relationship.  For me,
the issue is that that relationship exists, not which word to call it.

                                                                         and
    the intention was to detract from OpenBSD - no matter how much sugar
    coating it came with.

My intention was to explain my views and reasons for deciding not to
recommend OpenBSD.

    Based on this, I see no hypocrisy from OpenBSD.

I do not say that OpenBSD is hypocritical.  I only say it does
something that I think systems should not do.

    If RMS had made the statement that OpenBSD doesn't actively prevent the
    user from running non-free software then I think there wouldn't be an
    issue here - what operating system does?

The idea that I want systems to actively prevent running non-free
software is a straw man.  Since the first message I posted, I have
told people that I do not want that.  When people disregard my actual
views and attack this straw man they are simply misrepresenting my
views.

                                             Then again, it wouldn't have
    the same impact as claiming that OpenBSD contains and endorses non-free
    software.

What I said is that the ports system suggests installing non-free
programs.  That's accurate, and it's also the issue at hand.

    RMS, on the other hand, comes in with a half baked idea that OpenBSD
    endorses non-free software, AND he openly endorses censorship of all
    non-free software.

I do not advocate censorship of software, or anything else.  I
advocate making all software free, and that's something different.

[Richard Stallman]

    There is a difference between "I have no obligation to answer each and
    every message" and "I cannot find a coherent answer to several messages".

One difference is that the first one is true, and the second one is
false.  As you've seen by now, people were looking for something
sinister in a simple delay.

    I know of at least four companies I've worked with/for that *rely* on
    gcc and that would switch to Linux/BSD if gcc was not available on Windows.

I am surprised by this statement, because in general I don't expect
that very many users would switch to a different operating system just
to use GCC.  Nonetheless, I would be interested in talking with them
to see what they say about this.

[Richard Stallman]

    > Torvalds' version of Linux is not free software, for this reason.
    > Ututo and gNewSense include a version of Linux which remove the
    > firmware blobs, in order to make it free software.
    >
    >

    that's awesome, can users add these back in if they choose?

I suppose so.  I don't see how anything could stop them.  Whatever the
changes gNewSense has made in the source code of Linux, a user could
revert them if he wants to.

                                                                is your
    project worthless because of these users 'actions?

Not at all.  The point is to avoid things to lead users to install
non-free software, and/or grant ethical legitimacy to non-free
software.  gNewSense doesn't lead users to install blobs, and doesn't
kegitimize them.

It's not the point to _stop_ users from doing anything.  Thus, while
it's a fact that gNewSense users can reinstall the blobs if they want
to, that doesn't affect the point.

[Richard Stallman]

    OpenBSD "refuses to accept it's users being forced into depending on
    vendor binaries" and pushes people to "send a message that open support
    for hardware matters".

I appreciate those actions.  They help our community.

[Richard Stallman]

For personal reasons, I do not browse the web from my computer.  (I
also have not net connection much of the time.)  To look at page I
send mail to a demon which runs wget and mails the page back to me.
It is very efficient use of my time, but it is slow in real time.

[Richard Stallman]

    This incredibly misguided. People won't switch to free software
    because of hectoring and hamfisted attempts to frustrate their
    choices,

Convincing people to switch to free software is just one part of what
we need to do to establish a society in which users are free.  We also
have to teach them to appreciate their freedom, and recognize that
non-free would deny them their freedom.  That way they will take
actions to protect their freedom.

Messages of acceptance of non-free software undermine the efforts
to teach people that appreciation, and that is why I have decided
to reject them.

As for words like "hectoring and hamfisted attempts", I think that
reflects your feelings toward me more than the reality of what I do.

    Rather than wasting effort trying to make firefox unusable for an
    unfortunately large proportion of its userbase and on insulting
    OpenBSD developers with spurious accusations, why not spend the
    energy on making a usable flashplayer replacement?

We are doing that too.  It is called Gnash.

However, if all we do is replace each non-free plug-in when it
appears, I don't think we will ever catch up with them.  We need to
address this problem from both ends: developing free plug-ins, and
discouraging the acceptance of non-free plug-ins.

[Bengt Frost]

On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 12:31:25PM -0700, Darrin Chandler wrote:

> On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 11:32:19AM -0700, Jack J. Woehr wrote:
> > I do, too. I like them both. I want them to stop fighting in public. I don't
> > care which one started it. I suppose it was Richard. It doesn't matter. Our
> > reputations as human beings will long outlive our reputations as coders.
>
> Fighting in public is not nice. But sometimes nice takes a backseat to
> truth. Aside from any amusement value, I'm getting something real out of
> this thread: who sticks by their own principles and who doesn't is
> becoming clear to me.
>
> I judge people less by how much they agree with my own views than by how
> they adhere to their own. If I don't agree with someone but they stand
> by their principles then at least I know where they stand and that they
> have honor.
>
> So far, the rationale from rms is extremely murky at best, and
> *anything* less than *best* sounds outright hypocritical. So far, Theo's
> position is completely consistent. This is what I've taken away from
> this thread. This is important in both theory and practice. Theo is
> winning this on both ideological and pragmatic ground.
>
> --
> Darrin Chandler            |  Phoenix BSD User Group  |  MetaBUG
> dwchandler@...   |  http://phxbug.org/      |  http://metabug.org/
> http://www.stilyagin.com/  |  Daemons in the Desert   |  Global BUG Federation

Writing this mail from my Debian/GNU(?) desktop and sending it through my free
OpenBSD firewall/server etc ... Following this thread with great interest and find
it very claryfing on licensing issues.

I admire Richard Stallman for making people aware of free GNU software as a alternative
to M$ and other propriary -closed-software vendors. Thanks Richard Stallman!
 
But must admit that after following this thread mr Stallman's arguments
seems __contradictory__. He says f.ex. it's 'ok' to use gcc and emacs ... on
propriary system, but it's not 'ok' to give to the user - if she or he
__wants__ to - the possibility to install propr*** sofware through the *BSD
portssystem(sep. install).

Finally as long as i do not hurt 'someone' (to mutch) then it must
be up to me to choose what i want to do, f.ex. install packages through
portssystem.

--bfrost
(Bengt Frost)
http://www.fvp.se, http://www.fvpideas.com, http://www.fvpideas.eu

[j4nKy]

On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 01:52:26PM -0600, Travers Buda wrote:

> However, if someone is well-versed in the GPL philosophy and rhetoric,
> it is understood what is meant when I say free and when I say open.

but Richard is not talking to people who are well versed in GPL
philosophy.  he is talking to people who understand freedom
in the dictionary sense.

believe me, this is what I first believed Richard was about, the
dictionary definition of freedom.  after actually reading the GPL, it
became obvious that he is not about real freedom, but about
restrictions.

Richard Stallman is a gutless politician who uses strong words to
push his opinions and goals, confusing otherwise well intentioned
people.  he is gutless because he does not admit that his ramblings
confuse people, that his ramblings confuse the meaning of freedom.

he is pushing restrictions in the name of freedom.  you can argue that
restrictions are needed to protect freedom all you want, but it does
not hold when we are talking about software licenses.  no matter how
furiously I type, my fist comes nowhere near your nose.  there is no
need to draw the line where my freedoms end and your freedoms begin.
what license I put on something I wrote in no way endangers anyone
else, because ultimately, there is the choice to completely ignore
whatever it is I wrote.

however, Richard's constant redifinition of well known words is quite
disrespectful of language and society in general.  his flailing
ramblings do hit people in the nose and knock them silly.

that is why, when Richard makes some statement in an arena where
most people understand freedom in the disctionary sense and wish to
protect it, he is attacked.  because he is a hypocrit who is trying to
destroy the freedom that many people understand, exercise and enjoy.

--
jakemsr@...
SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org

[Firas Kraiem-3]

On Saturday 15 December 2007 21:37:37 Mattieu Baptiste wrote:
> This is to me simply pathetic that you don't admit all the merits,
> qualities and efforts regarding freedom that OpenBSD developpers
> made.

http://www.fsf.org/news/fsaward2004.html

Not to mention the countless times Richard acknowledged all the positive
contributions of OpenBSD as a whole to the Free Software movement,
including in this very thread.

Hypocrisy is on both sides, it seems...

Firas

--
()  ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\  www.asciiribbon.org   - against proprietary attachments

GnuPG public key: http://itsuki.fkraiem.org/gpgkey

[BOFH-5]

On Dec 15, 2007 3:37 PM, Mattieu Baptiste <mattieu.b@...> wrote:

> On Dec 14, 2007 9:49 PM, Richard Stallman <rms@...> wrote:
> > Could you tell me the name of that facility, or something else about
> > it?  If it is specifically and only useful for blobs, perhaps it
> > should be remove from gNewSense.  On the other hand, if it is a
> > general purpose feature and blobs are merely one thing it could be
> > used for, then I probably don't have anything against it.  I don't
> > criticize general facilities merely because someone could use them
> > to do things with non-free software.
>
> For facilities, we can take the example of the prominence of binary-only
> linux kernel modules. You're ok with the fact that they can be more than
> easily installed by every dump people, you're ok by the fact that your
> recommended distro provides facilities for installing these types of
> blobs... but on the other side, just because OpenBSD, a full-featured,
> *completely free* operating system, is transparent enough to show its users
> what software (free or non free) they can install *separately*, you
> criticize the project and you not recommend it.

You do realize he has been criticizing most linux distros for years,
right?  For exactly the same thing.


--
http://www.glumbert.com/media/shift
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGvHNNOLnCk
"This officer's men seem to follow him merely out of idle curiosity."
-- Sandhurst officer cadet evaluation.
"Securing an environment of Windows platforms from abuse - external or
internal - is akin to trying to install sprinklers in a fireworks
factory where smoking on the job is permitted."  -- Gene Spafford
learn french:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1G-3laJJP0&feature=related

[Theo de Raadt]

>     How does using non-free software, by your definition anything none
>     GPL'ed I gather, bring actual physical harm to anyone anywhere?
>
> Physical harm is not the only kind of harm.
> Losing your freedom is harm too.  Social practices that lead
> people into a life without freedom are harmful.

You mean social practices like standing up on an airplane and refusing
to sit down when commanded by a flight attendant, and the plane having
to taxi back from the runway to the boarding gate, and then everyone
on the plane being subjected to your behaviour?

I think I understand you now.

[Mattieu Baptiste-2]

On Dec 15, 2007 11:11 PM, Firas Kraiem <firas@...> wrote:

> On Saturday 15 December 2007 21:37:37 Mattieu Baptiste wrote:
> > This is to me simply pathetic that you don't admit all the merits,
> > qualities and efforts regarding freedom that OpenBSD developpers
> > made.
>
> http://www.fsf.org/news/fsaward2004.html


From that page : "Every year, three finalists are nominated for the award by
the Free Software Community."
Richard is NOT the only one to choose...


> <http://www.fsf.org/news/fsaward2004.html>
>
> Not to mention the countless times Richard acknowledged all the positive
> contributions of OpenBSD as a whole to the Free Software movement,
> including in this very thread.


yes, he gives rewards in one hand, and criticizes openbsd's choice of
freedom on the other hand...


>
>
> Hypocrisy is on both sides, it seems...


So we don't read the same thing...

>
>
> Firas
>
> --
> ()  ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
> /\  www.asciiribbon.org   - against proprietary attachments
>
> GnuPG public key: http://itsuki.fkraiem.org/gpgkey
>

--
Mattieu Baptiste
"/earth is 102% full ... please delete anyone you can."

[Michael Spratt]

You meant contaminate not bless right ? :)

Here is the rest of the quote that you failed to include (obviously
sarcastic and hinting that you not come blather in this forum)

"
I summon you ohh old and defunct goat. Come shed your hairs upon our path.
Come and grace us with your holey eminence for all who roam the land shall
fall under thy dictate. "

I'm not going to attack you any more only because I feel sorry for you and
you deserve to remain at human status and not be further reduced as some
including myself might argue you should be. That argument has already been
established and it would be in-humane to continue to repeate it. You keep
drawing on this ad-hominm argument to protect your falic nest of
contradiction. I am in a superposition between feeling sory for you and not
wanting to further abuse your pathological lying self verbally in public,
and alternatley allowing you just to make statements/responses like these
that allow you to re-ooze your way into a self respecting stance without
reaching a cogent argument. I'm really torn between the two positions your
conflicting irrational believe system and your basic insistance on being a
generally good and decent person. Your walking a fine line for in my
opinion. The more I try to give you credit the deeper whole I find myself
digging. I mean your belief system is more in line with Carlos Castanada
than any rational software developer. That's not necesarilly bad or good. I
don't know you but hey, at least your still participating in some capacity
and not hiding under a rock.

I'm going to leave this in a superimposed state rather than continue to
attack you as a person.

I will give you one token in support of your hypocracy/pathological nature.

" Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I
contain multitudes."
-Walt Whitman  ( this is a nice way of handeling your hypocritical
arguments)

Be gone oh idealistic goat of confusion, may your meta-conversations fizzle
into oblivion and may your wonton notions rest in peace knowing that you
have indeed made your contribution, something most of us can only hope to
do.

The whole point of OpenBSD is that its indominable, why would you come from
another camp and try to go pissing around the openbsd tents? That's why your
in such a fuck-crotch position here. Your fundementally out of your element.
Your in the wrong domain. You went to the parking lot but got in the wrong
car. To me arguing the actuall points with you is not even relevent because
your basic fundemental nature is idealistic and impractical. Its not wrong
or bad necesarilly but its not applicable in this domain.

How many more days is the parade of non-sence going to continue ?

That's my oppinion .. Yours mayyy bee different...


-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Stallman [mailto:rms@...]
Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2007 12:36 AM
To: Michael Spratt
Cc: lists.at.blurbfly@...; dhlii@...; misc@...
Subject: Re: Real men don't attack straw men

    Come oh dilbert of gnu, stamp your licence upon all who code. Propegate
your
    gnu legacy through the universe down to the plank scale. Install your
agenda
    near and far. Come and spread the evangalistic word.

All I can do personally is bless your computer.  But if it has non-free
software installed, it needs an exorcism.

[Mattieu Baptiste-2]

On Dec 15, 2007 11:17 PM, bofh <goodb0fh@...> wrote:

>
> You do realize he has been criticizing most linux distros for years,
> right?  For exactly the same thing.
> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1G-3laJJP0&feature=related>
>

Yes, "most". Why not gNewSense ?


--
Mattieu Baptiste
"/earth is 102% full ... please delete anyone you can."

[Theo de Raadt]

> What I said was that I don't recommend OpenBSD because the ports
> system suggests non-free programs.

On the bsd talk show you did not withhold your recommendation because
the ports system suggests non-free programs.  No way, that's not what
you said on that show.

What actually happened is that you withheld your recommendation
because it CONTAINS non-free programs; that is what your words were.

It turns out that the above assessment was based on a complete lack of
research.  It was uneducated, and you should have apologized for the
error.

You were really clear in your interview.  And wrong.

Later on, on this mailing list, you have changed your statements to
say that your recommend against OpenBSD because it now... RECOMMENDS
non-free software.

We've made it quite clear that Emacs and gcc recommend the use of
non-free software, by directly containing code to support those
systems.  The ports tree does not contain code to support non-free
components.  It simply provides URLs to a few select things which
people might wish to use.  Itself, it contains no non-free code and
makes no recommendations.  But gcc and emacs directly contain code
which RECOMMENDS compilation on non-free systems, by actually
compiling and running there.

First you lied.  Then you introduced new position that you cannot meet
yourself.  That is hypocritical of you.

You are a hypocritical liar, Richard.

Your lies taint the efforts of the entire FSF and GNU communities.

Shame on you all for letting Richard mislead you so.

[Firas Kraiem-3]

On Saturday 15 December 2007 23:27:25 Mattieu Baptiste wrote:
> On Dec 15, 2007 11:11 PM, Firas Kraiem <firas@...>
wrote:
> > Not to mention the countless times Richard acknowledged all the
> > positive contributions of OpenBSD as a whole to the Free Software
> > movement, including in this very thread.
>
> yes, he gives rewards in one hand, and criticizes openbsd's choice of
> freedom on the other hand...

So what ? Are you telling me that, just because there is one thing about
which Richard disagrees with OpenBSD, he shouldn't have the right to
also tell the good he thinks about it ? Or the other way around,
because OpenBSD makes efforts regarding freedom, he should not have the
right to express his points of disagreement ?

I guess you should consider getting glasses, you're seeing things in
black and white.

Firas

--
()  ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\  www.asciiribbon.org   - against proprietary attachments

GnuPG public key: http://itsuki.fkraiem.org/gpgkey