Real men don't attack straw men

[Firas Kraiem-3]

On Monday 17 December 2007 03:44:39 Rod Whitworth wrote:

> On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 21:20:19 -0500, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:
> >So if I write a non-free insecure kernel and install it via ports
> > that is acceptable.
> >You are trying to argue both pragmatism and principle concurrently,
> >You are obviously free to try but it makes things very easy for me.
>
> <snip loads of more fantasia bullshit>
>
> What the fuck are you on? The Koolaid from FSF?
>

Seems rather high quality stuff. Where can I get some ? ;-)

Firas

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

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

[Ray Percival-2]

On Dec 16, 2007, at 5:52 PM, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:

> Ray Percival wrote:
> You believe in absolute freedom - freedom to do whatever you damn well
> please.
I really fail to see the problem with that but whatever.
> Yet you are seeking to deny the same freedom to Richard and everyone
> else that disagrees.

Who wants to deny Stallman the freedom to do anything he wants? He  
has the freedom to say and do anything he would like. And I have the  
freedom to mock him for it. Everybody gets what they want.

[Douglas A. Tutty]

On Sun, Dec 16, 2007 at 09:20:19PM -0500, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:
   
> So if I write a non-free insecure kernel and install it via ports that
> is acceptable.

Sure, why not?  If you could get the linux kernel (e.g. with the nVidia
blob) to compile on OpenBSD and run an OpenBSD userland, why not?  Then
one could dual-boot one partition.  Linux to do some graphics thingy
off-line, then reboot bsd to do real work on-line.

You see, such a push-me-pull-you could be useful to someone who likes
OBSD but requires a non-free thingy for a very important purpose, such
as earning a living.  Sure its easy to say that nobody should do any
work requiring 3D accelleration until there is a free driver for free
hardware.  If such work were to actually stop then there would be no 3D
work done for worth-while uses (i.e. not games).  On the other hand,
there's the real-world experince with OS/2 that was mentioned a while
back.

I understand the ethical dilemma.  RMS cuts the Geordian knot.  Sure
everyone could choose to not use non-free software.  However, sometimes
the cost is too high.  Last week I had to access a government service on
the web and it required the flash-player plug-in; the phone line refers
one to the web and if you don't have internet access it refers you to
your local library for free access.  So either on my computer or the
library's I'll have to use non-free software.  The cost to my family was
too high to forgo the government service (health-care related).  

Thus, I feel that OpenBSD has made the best choice for supporting open
software in the real world.

Doug.

[marina-25]

David:

Do you even use OpenBSD ? I've been using it for many many years. What
stake do you have in this discussion ?

--- Marina Brown



On Sun, 16 Dec 2007, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:

> Marco Peereboom wrote:
>> On Sun, Dec 16, 2007 at 05:24:48PM -0500, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:
>>
>>> That's fine, it is a statement of values and principals, that is exactly
>>> what I was looking for - something that is conspicuously absent from the
>>> OpenBSD web site.
>>> If it is what OpenBSD beleives - have the balls to say so, rather than
>>> the watered down language on the website.
>>> The OpenBSD website expresses a clear value for code quality, and one of
>>> security.
>>>
>>
>> Ports are 3rd party apps.  Of course we don't make a value judgement on
>> the OpenBSD website for it.  WTF?
>>
> So if I write a non-free insecure kernel and install it via ports that
> is acceptable.
> You are trying to argue both pragmatism and principle concurrently,
> You are obviously free to try but it makes things very easy for me.
>
>>
>>> It is also inconsistent with providing URL's to software that is not
>>> free to all.
>>> I do not care whether you use a different definition of freedom than the
>>> FSF/GNU/RMS.
>>> Whatever your definition of freedom is, if you do not apply it to the
>>> things you provide URL's for in ports,
>>> then you are saying that that freedom is not really all that important
>>> to you.
>>> If you really beleive in that stick to it, even with in URL's in ports.
>>> Tell RMS that OpenBSD will accept in ports only software that is freely
>>> redistributable, regardless, of what its purpose is.
>>>
>>
>> One is not at liberty to change words around to mean what they want.
>> That is not part of a civil conversation.  First we have to agree on the
>> meaning then we can have a debate.  As a politician he changes the
>> meaning of words around to fit his purposes.  I'll call BS on that every
>> time I'll see it.
>>
> I am not changing the meaning of words, for the most part I am taking
> your words, with your meanings, and applying them consistently
> to your system, until it produces a contradiction.
> If your words, your definitions and your values were consistent
> no contradiction would occur.
>
> One of the most serious problems that you have is that if you have a
> system that is self
> contraditictory and you accept the contradictions as truth, then you can
> prove anything.
> that is a principle of logic. It has nothing to do with me, except that
> I have used it as a tool.
>
> If there is no contraditiction in your system of values, then it will
> not work.
>>
>>> One of my problems with OpenBSD, is that the sense I get of what you
>>> mean by freedom is the freedom to do whatever I please,
>>> including reject your own values, when it is convenient. Further I think
>>> you are so hostile to the FSF/GPL/RMS that you would
>>> deliberately violate your own principles, to spite RMS.
>>>
>>
>> You seem to fail to understand that nobody cares what RMS' little OS list
>> looks like.  What I care about is that he shows up on my mailing lists
>> and start pissing in my sandbox.  I don't care what his opinion is; he
>> can say whatever he wants.  What he can't do is lying about my OS in
>> front of me and expect me not to react.  He is full of it and we have
>> told him so.  If he is sick of being flamed he can stop responding.
>>
> That is not the perception I have of OpenBSD.
> Whenever, there is some spat with Linux Kernel developers,
> OpenBSD rushes to demand that RMS straighten it out for them.
> Providing him with a predefined eexplanation of exactly how his own values
> requires him to do so, along with, the presumption that he will not and
> maligning him because he did not - all before even hitting send.
>
> In the end you are what you hate. But you are not the real RMS,
> you are the one your have created.

On 12/17/07, David H. Lynch Jr. <dhlii@...> wrote:
> Yet you are seeking to deny the same freedom to Richard and everyone
> else that disagrees.

No-one is trying to deny RMS the freedom to say and think whatever the
hell he wants, no matter how wacky.

---
Lars Hansson

[Marco Peereboom]

On Sun, Dec 16, 2007 at 09:20:19PM -0500, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:

> Marco Peereboom wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 16, 2007 at 05:24:48PM -0500, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:
> >  
> >> That's fine, it is a statement of values and principals, that is exactly
> >> what I was looking for - something that is conspicuously absent from the
> >> OpenBSD web site.
> >> If it is what OpenBSD beleives - have the balls to say so, rather than
> >> the watered down language on the website.
> >> The OpenBSD website expresses a clear value for code quality, and one of
> >> security.
> >>    
> >
> > Ports are 3rd party apps.  Of course we don't make a value judgement on
> > the OpenBSD website for it.  WTF?
> >  
> So if I write a non-free insecure kernel and install it via ports that
> is acceptable.
> You are trying to argue both pragmatism and principle concurrently,
> You are obviously free to try but it makes things very easy for me.

A kernel in ports? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>
> >  
> >> It is also inconsistent with providing URL's to software that is not
> >> free to all.
> >> I do not care whether you use a different definition of freedom than the
> >> FSF/GNU/RMS.
> >> Whatever your definition of freedom is, if you do not apply it to the
> >> things you provide URL's for in ports,
> >> then you are saying that that freedom is not really all that important
> >> to you.
> >> If you really beleive in that stick to it, even with in URL's in ports.
> >> Tell RMS that OpenBSD will accept in ports only software that is freely
> >> redistributable, regardless, of what its purpose is.
> >>    
> >
> > One is not at liberty to change words around to mean what they want.
> > That is not part of a civil conversation.  First we have to agree on the
> > meaning then we can have a debate.  As a politician he changes the
> > meaning of words around to fit his purposes.  I'll call BS on that every
> > time I'll see it.
> >  
> I am not changing the meaning of words, for the most part I am taking
> your words, with your meanings, and applying them consistently
> to your system, until it produces a contradiction.
> If your words, your definitions and your values were consistent
> no contradiction would occur.
>
> One of the most serious problems that you have is that if you have a
> system that is self
> contraditictory and you accept the contradictions as truth, then you can
> prove anything.
> that is a principle of logic. It has nothing to do with me, except that
> I have used it as a tool.
>
> If there is no contraditiction in your system of values, then it will
> not work.

If you feel this is the case then there is something wrong with your
reading comprehension.  You contort my words every time but they don't
mean what you say.  It was kind of funny earlier but now its getting
boring.

> >  
> >> One of my problems with OpenBSD, is that the sense I get of what you
> >> mean by freedom is the freedom to do whatever I please,
> >> including reject your own values, when it is convenient. Further I think
> >> you are so hostile to the FSF/GPL/RMS that you would
> >> deliberately violate your own principles, to spite RMS.
> >>    
> >
> > You seem to fail to understand that nobody cares what RMS' little OS list
> > looks like.  What I care about is that he shows up on my mailing lists
> > and start pissing in my sandbox.  I don't care what his opinion is; he
> > can say whatever he wants.  What he can't do is lying about my OS in
> > front of me and expect me not to react.  He is full of it and we have
> > told him so.  If he is sick of being flamed he can stop responding.
> >  
> That is not the perception I have of OpenBSD.
> Whenever, there is some spat with Linux Kernel developers,
> OpenBSD rushes to demand that RMS straighten it out for them.
> Providing him with a predefined eexplanation of exactly how his own values
> requires him to do so, along with, the presumption that he will not and
> maligning him because he did not - all before even hitting send.
>
> In the end you are what you hate. But you are not the real RMS,
> you are the one your have created.

I don't hate RMS or GNU or GPL etc.  I find them silly at best but that
is besides the point.  Point is that someone comes and pisses in my
sandbox.  I piss and poop back.  Especially if that someone shows up
playing moral high ground while being a complete and total hypocrite.

If you can't see that I suggest you stop replying to this thread.

[PuffyBSD]

On Dec 15, 2007 10:56 PM, David H. Lynch Jr. <dhlii@...> wrote:
> Bengt Frost wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 12:31:25PM -0700, Darrb
>
> > 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.
> >
>     If I wrote a a BSD Licensed program to mailbomb jews.
> Would that be acceptable within ports ?

and who exactly would you bribe to get this "mailbomb" committed to
the ports tree?

Sam Fourman Jr.

[Reid Nichol]

Richard,

  I have followed this thread for the first couple hundred mails.  But,
as the noise is getting to much for me, someone that is just a lurker,
so I feel I must make a couple comments and a request.

  As your views on open-source have become more and more extreme over
time, you have become less and less relevant to a overall practical
open-source community (I call it reality).  You have also made, to be
polite, inaccurate statements about OpenBSD which have been corrected
in great detail.  But, your response has only been to become a slimy
politician and change your views (or those that you have presented on
list) as the previous views have failed.  Furthermore, you have flat
out ignored some corrections and I can only assume that this conflicts
with your core values to the point that you refuse to change (much like
fundamentalist evangelical *insert religion here*'s) one iota.

  But, what I find most disturbing about your behaviour is that it you
try to shove your views down other peoples throat with great vigour.
You have admitted as much on this list with regards to failed attempts
with Ubuntu and Debain and you have now failed here.  Even your cronies
have made, to be polite, little headway because there views are pretty
much as extreme as yours.  Not to mention the inherent sophistry
therein.

  I think that at this point it is obvious that OpenBSD is /not/ going
to change its views because of RMS.  And I for one thank the devs
because OpenBSD suits me just fine the way it is.  IMO, to change it in
any way toward your extreme views would only detract from an otherwise
clean and free OS.

  Please go away, take your cronies with you and live in your own
little pocket universe so the rest of us can live in peace.

regards,
Reid


      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.  http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ 

[David H. Lynch Jr.-2]

Sam Fourman Jr. wrote:

> On Dec 15, 2007 10:56 PM, David H. Lynch Jr. <dhlii@...> wrote:
>  
>> Bengt Frost wrote:
>>    
>>> On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 12:31:25PM -0700, Darrb
>>>      
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>      
>>     If I wrote a a BSD Licensed program to mailbomb jews.
>> Would that be acceptable within ports ?
>>    
>
> and who exactly would you bribe to get this "mailbomb" committed to
> the ports tree?
>  

    That is the point!
    Why is it that I can not expect ports to accept this ?
    Because accepting it would be the same as tacitly endorsing it.
    Accepting non-free software is is equivalent to tacitly endorsing it.

[David H. Lynch Jr.-2]

Marco Peereboom wrote:

>>
>> I am not changing the meaning of words, for the most part I am taking
>> your words, with your meanings, and applying them consistently
>> to your system, until it produces a contradiction.
>> If your words, your definitions and your values were consistent
>> no contradiction would occur.
>>
>> One of the most serious problems that you have is that if you have a
>> system that is self
>> contraditictory and you accept the contradictions as truth, then you can
>> prove anything.
>> that is a principle of logic. It has nothing to do with me, except that
>> I have used it as a tool.
>>
>> If there is no contraditiction in your system of values, then it will
>> not work.
>>    
>
> If you feel this is the case then there is something wrong with your
> reading comprehension.  You contort my words every time but they don't
> mean what you say.  It was kind of funny earlier but now its getting
> boring.
>  

It is basic logic 101.
I am actually being much kinder to your words than has OpenBSD has been
with Richards.
I have not chosen the words, but the meanings I ascribe to them are
their ordinary accepted meanings.
I did not choose the values.
> I don't hate RMS or GNU or GPL etc.  I find them silly at best but that
> is besides the point.  Point is that someone comes and pisses in my
> sandbox.  I piss and poop back.  Especially if that someone shows up
> playing moral high ground while being a complete and total hypocrite.
>  
Is there some scatalogical affliction here? Is it possible to discuss
anything on the OpenBSD
list without piss, poop, and insults?

I have been on the OpenBSD list for some time. Every time the
Linux Kernel crowd pisses on OpenBSD, OpenBSD hunts RMS down and demands
that he compell the LKML'ers to follow OpenBSD edicts.

OpenBSD invited RMS into its tent.
Further, he did not piss in your sandbox, OpenBSD took insult where
there was none,
and then got more upset when he bothered to say so.

If you think you have the moral high ground then argue that.
There are several very easy ways for OpenBSD to "take the moral high ground"
It is easy "our values and principles do not permit us to meet the
criteria RMS uses
for his recommendation". The problems with that are:
you have to accept that your commitment to your particular definition of
freedom is
a higher value than your opposition to non-free software.
It also means RMS's remarks are true.

[David H. Lynch Jr.-2]

Firas Kraiem wrote:
>
> However, and that's the difference with people like you (and RMS), they
> just consider that it doesn't give them the right to impose their view
> of freedom on others, and they let the user do whatever the hell he/she
> wishes to do, according to his/her personal view and beliefs on the
> matter. That may or may not include installing non-free software, but
> that is none of your business, or mine, or RMS'.
>  
    No one has told you what must or must not do.
    This whole thread started as a knee jerk reaction to Richard's
    to a very short remark by Richard on BSDTalk where to paraphrase he said
    that he was sorry that he could not recommend and of the BSD's
despite many
    positive qualities because they do not conform to his standards for
treatment of
     non-free software.
   
    The OpenBSD group chose to take that as a deliberately spiteful
missle targeting them.
    Maybe that is because OpenBSD is the closet to meeting Richard's
standards,
    Maybe it is because, my reading of most of this thread is URL's to
non-free software are a bad
    thing, but we are going to keep doing them anyway, because accepting
that they are not
     consistent with our values might give Richard an occasion to gloat
and we would rather
    insert a binary blob from Redmond than admit that Richard might be
the slightest right about anything.

[David H. Lynch Jr.-2]

Rod Whitworth wrote:
> You wrote about a port of a program designed to mailbomb Jewish sites.
>  
    That was an extreme hypothetical chosen to make a point..
    Apparently Theo has used an even more extreme on in the past.
> A total wanker dream not a thing that would ever be submitted. Probably
> an impossible dream.
>  
     The point is that the presence or absence of something in ports has
meaning.
> But you are a self-confessed miracle coder so your bent mind could
> probably do it. Getting it accepted anywhere including at KKK
> headquarters might be problematic.
>  
    What part of deliberately extreme hypothetical is unclear.
    The point is that accepting it - like accepting non-free software
has meaning.
   
> Now a non-free kernel that is insecure. I'll bet you could mash
> something together. Get it to install from ports, I don't think so.
> Get it accepted into ports? Thin to none
>  
    Whether it is accepted or not, the decision to do so has meaning.
    The very act of deciding has meaning.
   
    What I am arguing AGAINST is:
         the claim that non-free software in ports has no meaning.
        That enough layers of indirection innoculate OpenBSD from the
meaning of its acts.
        That there are technolgical means to work arround issues of
principle or values.

> You see, the apps that are unfree which make it into ports are those in
> big demand because they are useful or fun to run on their home OS and
> some folk want to not run that OS.
>  
    The NVIDIA binary blob is popular.
    Is the criteria for sacrificing your principles, the extent to which
something is popular ?
    OpenBSD has taken Rigid,  principled  honourable  stands on a wide
variety of issues.
    It has taken an incredibly strong stand on non-free software, and
then whimped out
    when it came to ports.
   
    Which matter your principles, or your popularity ?

[BOFH-5]

To copy someone else's treatment of one of my mails... :)

On Dec 17, 2007 1:15 AM, David H. Lynch Jr. <dhlii@...> wrote:
>     No one has told you what must or must not do.
>     This whole thread started as a knee jerk reaction to Richard's
>     to a very short remark by Richard on BSDTalk where to paraphrase he said
>     that he was sorry that he could not recommend and of the BSD's
> despite many
>     positive qualities because they do not conform to his standards for
> treatment of
>      non-free software.

OK, so far, so good.
>
>     The OpenBSD group chose to take that as a deliberately spiteful
> missle targeting them.

OK, maybe.

>     Maybe that is because OpenBSD is the closet to meeting Richard's
> standards,
>     Maybe it is because, my reading of most of this thread is URL's to
> non-free software are a bad
>     thing, but we are going to keep doing them anyway, because accepting
> that they are not
>      consistent with our values might give Richard an occasion to gloat
> and we would rather
>     insert a binary blob from Redmond than admit that Richard might be
> the slightest right about anything.

You went off the tracks there.  OpenBSD is *NOT* about blobs.  And,
unlike linux or anyone else, OpenBSD does not even sign distribution
agreements for distributing firmware.


--
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

[Rod Whitworth-3]

On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 01:15:25 -0500, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:

>   The OpenBSD group chose to take that as a deliberately spiteful
>missle targeting them.
>    Maybe that is because OpenBSD is the closet to meeting Richard's
>standards,
>    Maybe it is because, my reading of most of this thread is URL's to
>non-free software are a bad
>    thing, but we are going to keep doing them anyway, because accepting
>that they are not
>     consistent with our values might give Richard an occasion to gloat
>and we would rather
>    insert a binary blob from Redmond than admit that Richard might be
>the slightest right about anything.
>

You are a word twisting agent provocateur. Who is your puppet master?

Your "reading" of this thread says that you either need a class in
remedial reading or psychiatric help.

We would rather insert a binary blob from Redmond? You do know that
OpenBSD bans blobs from anywhere, don't you? Even linux or freebsd.

So in you come twisting words and not even doing that competently.

There is only one blob around here right now. You are it.
Fuck off wanker. Back to RMS and Eben with you. You are so desparate
you are getting careless, little toady.

You don't like the OpenBSD way? Good. Piss off and take all your
friends with you.
This is not a popularity contest, not a market share driven product and
damn right, it has an attitude.

An attitude of correct code as free as it gets and that suits this
community.

You have not made any friends, you have not changed any minds, you have
not gained any converts.

You, sir, are an abyssmal failure.

Now learn to know when to quit.

You'll get one food pellet when that happens.

[PuffyBSD]

>     The OpenBSD group chose to take that as a deliberately spiteful
> missle targeting them.

Richard *did* send an email to misc@..., notice that this
whole thing is in reply to Richard's original post to misc@

if Richard could go "Back to the Future" I believe he would send the
post to /dev/null instead.

[David H. Lynch Jr.-2]

Rod Whitworth wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 01:29:43 -0500, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:
>
>  
>> The NVIDIA binary blob is popular.
>>    
>  There you go again.
>
> You don't know the difference between a blob and an application.
    The difference has no meaning in the context of values and principles.
    It is like trying to claim that racial discrimination should be
acceptable, in Kenya, but not in the US.
   
    Further if you try to make values distinctions based on technical
differences, you are eventually going to
    run afoul of technology itself. FPGA's make hardware into software.
I can write a decryption algorithm,
    in a C like language, compile it into bits that create hardware that
performs the task completely without a CPU or
    OS.  the "firmware" of the FPGA is hardware, OS, and application all
rolled into one.
 
    We have courts cases that hinge on law based on technological
distinctions that have been superseded for decades.
    Wise men do not tie their values and principles to arbitrary
technological distinctions.

    The reasons a binary blob are bad do not change when it becomes an
application.
    a flaw in a binary blob in a rarely executed part of the OS may be
less significant that a flaw in a binary blob in a constantly used
    highly popular application. Security and reliability in the kernel
is critical, but security and reliability in an application is not
pointless.

[Rod Whitworth-3]

On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 03:32:37 -0500, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:

>Rod Whitworth wrote:
>> On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 01:29:43 -0500, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:
>>
>>  
>>> The NVIDIA binary blob is popular.
>>>    
>>  There you go again.
>>
>> You don't know the difference between a blob and an application.
>    The difference has no meaning in the context of values and principles.

Weasel words.

>    It is like trying to claim that racial discrimination should be
>acceptable, in Kenya, but not in the US.

No it isn't. Both of them are like you - wrong.

>  
>    Further if you try to make values distinctions based on technical
>differences, you are eventually going to
>    run afoul of technology itself. FPGA's make hardware into software.
>I can write a decryption algorithm,
>    in a C like language, compile it into bits that create hardware that
>performs the task completely without a CPU or
>    OS.  the "firmware" of the FPGA is hardware, OS, and application all
>rolled into one.
>

Still waffling.

>    We have courts cases that hinge on law based on technological
>distinctions that have been superseded for decades.
>    Wise men do not tie their values and principles to arbitrary
>technological distinctions.

Appeal to authority. Dishonest. Lose 50 points.

>
>    The reasons a binary blob are bad do not change when it becomes an
>application.
>    a flaw in a binary blob in a rarely executed part of the OS may be
>less significant that a flaw in a binary blob in a constantly used
>    highly popular application. Security and reliability in the kernel
>is critical, but security and reliability in an application is not
>pointless.
>

You are full of shit. Blobs in applications?
You gave yourself away there too. Blob is the word. Binary blob is a
redundancy.
Kinda like you.

Binary code in apps is NOT a blob. You are.
I got it right the first time - you are a dumb shit full of sophistry.
Either that or you know exactly what I mean and you think like Uri
Geller that we might fall for all the psychobabble and try to do point
by point refutation of a load of waffle.

Like I said before, wanker, back to your coven with the fools who
respect you or who use you as their tool.

<plonk!>

Rod/
/earth: write failed, file system is full
cp: /earth/creatures: No space left on device

[chefren]

On 12/16/07 9:20 PM, Richard Stallman wrote:

>     No No NO. You miss the point. GNU is fighting for their view
>     of freedom. Not *real* freedom.
>
> The GNU Project campaigns to give software users these four essential
> freedoms:
>
> Freedom 0: the freedom to run the program as you wish.
> Freedom 1: the freedom to study the source code and change it
>   so it does what you wish.
> Freedom 2: the freedom to distribute exact copies to others
>   when you wish.
> Freedom 3: the freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions
>   to others when you wish.
>
> That's what I think is real freedom in regard to using a program.
> Whether or not you agree, at least you know what my views are.

1/2/3 are capping the the freedoms of the source, the programmer, the creator
of programs.

If a programmer has a bright idea he should be able to choose to give it away
or make money with it, which gives her/him even more freedoms.

Richards idea's of "freedom" mean slavery for precisely the creators. Without
those there wouldn't be software at all.

Besides that, I still think it's extremely impolite to give something away
with something unnecessary attached to it, in this case DRM in pure form.


So it's what you give priority, the individual (creator) or the group (that
doesn't create in general).

I do agree with Richard that dependency by the group should be adressed. I
would like to propose a law that makes that software that is isn't supported
any more for x years should become BSD licensed.

The moment you let people use your software you make people dependent, that's
OK as long as it's a free choice with service. But if the service stops the
user can become a kind of enslaved and that's not OK

+++chefren

[chefren]

On 12/17/07 4:42 AM, Ray Percival wrote:

> Who wants to deny Stallman the freedom to do anything he wants? He has
> the freedom to say and do anything he would like. And I have the freedom
> to mock him for it. Everybody gets what they want.

If he is selfish, for example because he want to lessen freedom of programmers
without a proper reason, he may be denyed his unfree speech or at least
attacked for it.

And he is, he want's users to get things for free they haven't done anything
for besides using it.

+++chefren

[chefren]

On 12/17/07 8:25 AM, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:

> OpenBSD took insult where there was none


This discussion is about basic principles and Richard Stallman denies facts
contrary to what he states.

+++chefren