FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 04-04-2008, 07:08 PM
Michael C
 
Default

Hal Vaughan wrote:

On Friday 04 April 2008, Michael C wrote:


Hal Vaughan wrote:


On Friday 04 April 2008, Michael C wrote:


Ivan Savcic wrote:


On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 5:12 PM, Andrew Sackville-West

<andrew@farwestbilliards.com> wrote:


I have a problem with this. Debian, in it's default install is
almost assuredly GNU free. And it has the additional freedom of
allowing the user to choose to use non-free software within the
structure of it's packaging system. IMO that is more free than
preventing people from using the software they want.


I had exactly the same view on that. But RMS is obviously a
purist, he dreams to banish all closed source from this world.
Like Hal pointed out, RMS believes that there should be no
freedom when it comes to choosing freedom itself.

Ivan


RMS is more of a hypocrite than anything else. He morally objects
to distros/*BSD variants with non-free applications in their
repositories/ports systems, on the grounds that this implicitly
advocates the use of non-free software, whilst explicitly
advocating GPL-licensed software for use in conjunction with that
ultimate proprietary platform, MS Windows:
http://www.gnu.org/software/for-windows.html


I think what RMS objects to is anything that was not his idea
first.

Hal


Honi soit qui mal y pense!



Merde!

Granted that's just my opinion, based on what I've read and less than 2
1/2 hours at one of his talks (including some time talking to him
afterwards), so I could be way off base, but I did get the sense that
his world definitely starts and ends with his own views -- and
basically contains only his views.




The FSF's list curiously doesn't mention the GNU Foundation's support
for the Win32 port of emacs and gcc:
http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/windows/ntemacs.html



I admire RMS and a lot of what he's done. I'm currently working on
source for controlling an HD radio in C++ so I'm using gcc, based on
his earlier version and he did write emacs (isn't that an OS or
religion?). That doesn't mean that I think he carries things too far.


But then again, maybe it's that blindness and need of his to go too far
that has achieved what he has.


Hal



FWIW, I don't have any particular problem with the notion -- implicit in
Stallman's position -- that there's a set of positive political freedoms
which *morally* override the permissive freedom to install proprietary
software.

What concerns me is that Richard, in common with many people
half-seduced by their followers' portrayal of themselves as a
prophet/guru figure, has stopped listening to anyone outside of his
coterie of sycophants.





--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 04-04-2008, 07:55 PM
Hal Vaughan
 
Default

On Friday 04 April 2008, Michael C wrote:
> Hal Vaughan wrote:
> > On Friday 04 April 2008, Michael C wrote:
> >> Hal Vaughan wrote:
> >>> On Friday 04 April 2008, Michael C wrote:
> >>>> Ivan Savcic wrote:
> >>>>> On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 5:12 PM, Andrew Sackville-West
> >>>>>
> >>>>> <andrew@farwestbilliards.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> I have a problem with this. Debian, in it's default install is
> >>>>>> almost assuredly GNU free. And it has the additional freedom
> >>>>>> of allowing the user to choose to use non-free software within
> >>>>>> the structure of it's packaging system. IMO that is more free
> >>>>>> than preventing people from using the software they want.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I had exactly the same view on that. But RMS is obviously a
> >>>>> purist, he dreams to banish all closed source from this world.
> >>>>> Like Hal pointed out, RMS believes that there should be no
> >>>>> freedom when it comes to choosing freedom itself.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Ivan
> >>>>
> >>>> RMS is more of a hypocrite than anything else. He morally
> >>>> objects to distros/*BSD variants with non-free applications in
> >>>> their repositories/ports systems, on the grounds that this
> >>>> implicitly advocates the use of non-free software, whilst
> >>>> explicitly advocating GPL-licensed software for use in
> >>>> conjunction with that ultimate proprietary platform, MS Windows:
> >>>> http://www.gnu.org/software/for-windows.html
> >>>
> >>> I think what RMS objects to is anything that was not his idea
> >>> first.
> >>>
> >>> Hal
> >>
> >> Honi soit qui mal y pense!
> >
> > Merde!
> >
> > Granted that's just my opinion, based on what I've read and less
> > than 2 1/2 hours at one of his talks (including some time talking
> > to him afterwards), so I could be way off base, but I did get the
> > sense that his world definitely starts and ends with his own views
> > -- and basically contains only his views.
> >
> >> The FSF's list curiously doesn't mention the GNU Foundation's
> >> support for the Win32 port of emacs and gcc:
> >> http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/windows/ntemacs.html
> >
> > I admire RMS and a lot of what he's done. I'm currently working on
> > source for controlling an HD radio in C++ so I'm using gcc, based
> > on his earlier version and he did write emacs (isn't that an OS or
> > religion?). That doesn't mean that I think he carries things too
> > far.
> >
> > But then again, maybe it's that blindness and need of his to go too
> > far that has achieved what he has.
> >
> > Hal
>
> FWIW, I don't have any particular problem with the notion -- implicit
> in Stallman's position -- that there's a set of positive political
> freedoms which *morally* override the permissive freedom to install
> proprietary software.

I see the point, but don't agree completely with it. There are what I
consider sound reasons for closed source software and any person or
company can always elect to not use it.

> What concerns me is that Richard, in common with many people
> half-seduced by their followers' portrayal of themselves as a
> prophet/guru figure, has stopped listening to anyone outside of his
> coterie of sycophants.

I cannot disagree with that.

Hal


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 04-04-2008, 08:23 PM
Chris Walters
 
Default

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Michael C wrote:
| Hal Vaughan wrote:
|> On Friday 04 April 2008, Michael C wrote:
|>
|>> Hal Vaughan wrote:
|>>
|>>> On Friday 04 April 2008, Michael C wrote:
|>>>
|>>>> Ivan Savcic wrote:
|>>>>
|>>>>> On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 5:12 PM, Andrew Sackville-West
|>>>>>
|>>>>> <andrew@farwestbilliards.com> wrote:
|>>>>>
|>>>>>> I have a problem with this. Debian, in it's default install is
|>>>>>> almost assuredly GNU free. And it has the additional freedom of
|>>>>>> allowing the user to choose to use non-free software within the
|>>>>>> structure of it's packaging system. IMO that is more free than
|>>>>>> preventing people from using the software they want.
|>>>>>>
|>>>>> I had exactly the same view on that. But RMS is obviously a
|>>>>> purist, he dreams to banish all closed source from this world.
|>>>>> Like Hal pointed out, RMS believes that there should be no
|>>>>> freedom when it comes to choosing freedom itself.
|>>>>>
|>>>>> Ivan
|>>>>>
|>>>> RMS is more of a hypocrite than anything else. He morally objects
|>>>> to distros/*BSD variants with non-free applications in their
|>>>> repositories/ports systems, on the grounds that this implicitly
|>>>> advocates the use of non-free software, whilst explicitly
|>>>> advocating GPL-licensed software for use in conjunction with that
|>>>> ultimate proprietary platform, MS Windows:
|>>>> http://www.gnu.org/software/for-windows.html
|>>>>
|>>> I think what RMS objects to is anything that was not his idea
|>>> first.
|>>>
|>>> Hal
|>>>
|>> Honi soit qui mal y pense!
|>>
|>
|> Merde!
|>
|> Granted that's just my opinion, based on what I've read and less than
|> 2 1/2 hours at one of his talks (including some time talking to him
|> afterwards), so I could be way off base, but I did get the sense that
|> his world definitely starts and ends with his own views -- and
|> basically contains only his views.
|>
|>
|>> The FSF's list curiously doesn't mention the GNU Foundation's support
|>> for the Win32 port of emacs and gcc:
|>> http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/windows/ntemacs.html
|>>
|>
|> I admire RMS and a lot of what he's done. I'm currently working on
|> source for controlling an HD radio in C++ so I'm using gcc, based on
|> his earlier version and he did write emacs (isn't that an OS or
|> religion?). That doesn't mean that I think he carries things too far.
|>
|> But then again, maybe it's that blindness and need of his to go too
|> far that has achieved what he has.
|>
|> Hal
|>
|
| FWIW, I don't have any particular problem with the notion -- implicit in
| Stallman's position -- that there's a set of positive political freedoms
| which *morally* override the permissive freedom to install proprietary
| software.

Ah, but there are many who would disagree with that position. There was a
person who once said words to the effect that someone who will not fight for
freedom does not deserve it. Then there are the UN Conventions on Human Rights
- - these state, basically, IIRC that the rights of the individual are more
important than any particular moral or political override.

The idea that using closed source software is morally wrong, it problematic, at
best, since:
1. If you drive a car built after a certain point, you are using closed source
software (the computer that controls your engine, and the one that monitors
your acceleration and activates your airbag).
2. If you use a cell phone, you are using closed source software (the ROM chip
set that controls the phone - i.e. finds the cell tower signals and locks on).
3. If you use just about ANY computer, you are using closed source software
(various ROM and EPROM chips on the mainboard, and on any cards that you add on).
4. If you use a television, you are using closed source software (the tuner
and various ROM chips).
5. If you use pharmaceuticals, cleaning products, etc. you are, by proxy,
using closed source software (the software that controls the production
process, the software that the pharmacy uses to fill you prescription, and so on).

I could go on, but I think I have made my point.

| What concerns me is that Richard, in common with many people
| half-seduced by their followers' portrayal of themselves as a
| prophet/guru figure, has stopped listening to anyone outside of his
| coterie of sycophants.

I cannot disagree with this.

Chris
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iD8DBQFH9o5QUx1jS/ORyCsRCgEyAJ4/uC7cu07jWHqZDF/cBCEKO10WDACgkmnX
Wav/zxQPpPJKGcNCmbuvGbQ=
=kT3R
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 04-04-2008, 08:39 PM
Mark Allums
 
Default

Hal Vaughan wrote:
stay alive. Some, those generally at the lower levels of Piaget's
Hierarchy of Needs, will say survival is important while those focused
on the higher levels (focused on self actualization) where, since it's


Maslow


--
Mark Allums


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 04-04-2008, 11:48 PM
Michael C
 
Default

Chris Walters wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Michael C wrote:
| Hal Vaughan wrote:
|> On Friday 04 April 2008, Michael C wrote:
|>
|>> Hal Vaughan wrote:
|>>
|>>> On Friday 04 April 2008, Michael C wrote:
|>>>
|>>>> Ivan Savcic wrote:
|>>>>
|>>>>> On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 5:12 PM, Andrew Sackville-West
|>>>>>
|>>>>> <andrew@farwestbilliards.com> wrote:
|>>>>>
|>>>>>> I have a problem with this. Debian, in it's default install is
|>>>>>> almost assuredly GNU free. And it has the additional freedom of
|>>>>>> allowing the user to choose to use non-free software within the
|>>>>>> structure of it's packaging system. IMO that is more free than
|>>>>>> preventing people from using the software they want.
|>>>>>>
|>>>>> I had exactly the same view on that. But RMS is obviously a
|>>>>> purist, he dreams to banish all closed source from this world.
|>>>>> Like Hal pointed out, RMS believes that there should be no
|>>>>> freedom when it comes to choosing freedom itself.
|>>>>>
|>>>>> Ivan
|>>>>>
|>>>> RMS is more of a hypocrite than anything else. He morally objects
|>>>> to distros/*BSD variants with non-free applications in their
|>>>> repositories/ports systems, on the grounds that this implicitly
|>>>> advocates the use of non-free software, whilst explicitly
|>>>> advocating GPL-licensed software for use in conjunction with that
|>>>> ultimate proprietary platform, MS Windows:
|>>>> http://www.gnu.org/software/for-windows.html
|>>>>
|>>> I think what RMS objects to is anything that was not his idea
|>>> first.
|>>>
|>>> Hal
|>>>
|>> Honi soit qui mal y pense!
|>>
|>
|> Merde!
|>
|> Granted that's just my opinion, based on what I've read and less than
|> 2 1/2 hours at one of his talks (including some time talking to him
|> afterwards), so I could be way off base, but I did get the sense that
|> his world definitely starts and ends with his own views -- and
|> basically contains only his views.
|>
|>
|>> The FSF's list curiously doesn't mention the GNU Foundation's support
|>> for the Win32 port of emacs and gcc:
|>> http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/windows/ntemacs.html
|>>
|>
|> I admire RMS and a lot of what he's done. I'm currently working on
|> source for controlling an HD radio in C++ so I'm using gcc, based on
|> his earlier version and he did write emacs (isn't that an OS or
|> religion?). That doesn't mean that I think he carries things too far.
|>
|> But then again, maybe it's that blindness and need of his to go too
|> far that has achieved what he has.
|>
|> Hal
|>
|
| FWIW, I don't have any particular problem with the notion --
implicit in
| Stallman's position -- that there's a set of positive political
freedoms

| which *morally* override the permissive freedom to install proprietary
| software.

Ah, but there are many who would disagree with that position. There
was a
person who once said words to the effect that someone who will not
fight for
freedom does not deserve it. Then there are the UN Conventions on
Human Rights
- - these state, basically, IIRC that the rights of the individual are
more

important than any particular moral or political override.

The idea that using closed source software is morally wrong, it
problematic, at

best, since:
1. If you drive a car built after a certain point, you are using
closed source
software (the computer that controls your engine, and the one that
monitors

your acceleration and activates your airbag).
2. If you use a cell phone, you are using closed source software (the
ROM chip
set that controls the phone - i.e. finds the cell tower signals and
locks on).
3. If you use just about ANY computer, you are using closed source
software
(various ROM and EPROM chips on the mainboard, and on any cards that
you add on).
4. If you use a television, you are using closed source software (the
tuner

and various ROM chips).
5. If you use pharmaceuticals, cleaning products, etc. you are, by
proxy,

using closed source software (the software that controls the production
process, the software that the pharmacy uses to fill you prescription,
and so on).


There's the rub. There are practical/political impediments to the
exercise of genuine software freedom (the whole panoply of patents, NDAs
etc.) which no software license, no matter how "progressive", could ever
hope to effectively combat. So it follows that if there's to be real
software freedom, it would have to be predicated on new and transformed
social, political and economic arrangements.

But Stallman's is a utopian position, because in place of concrete
political and economic analyses of capitalism, all he really has to
offer politically is vague talk about extending Free Software's moral
example into other social spheres.



I could go on, but I think I have made my point.

| What concerns me is that Richard, in common with many people
| half-seduced by their followers' portrayal of themselves as a
| prophet/guru figure, has stopped listening to anyone outside of his
| coterie of sycophants.

I cannot disagree with this.

Chris
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iD8DBQFH9o5QUx1jS/ORyCsRCgEyAJ4/uC7cu07jWHqZDF/cBCEKO10WDACgkmnX
Wav/zxQPpPJKGcNCmbuvGbQ=
=kT3R
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----










--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 04-05-2008, 12:09 AM
"s. keeling"
 
Default

Andrew Sackville-West <andrew@farwestbilliards.com>:
> On Fri, Apr 04, 2008 at 10:04:46AM +0200, Ivan Savcic wrote:
> >
> > AFAIK, RMS considers only one distribution to be really and truly free
> > -- it's the Gentoo based Ututo[1]. He talked about this in his talk he
> > held in Belgrade, Serbia.
>
> I have a problem with this. Debian, in it's default install is almost
> assuredly GNU free. And it has the additional freedom of allowing the
> user to choose to use non-free software within the structure of its
> packaging system. IMO that is more free than preventing people from
> using the software they want.

I have the same problem with it.

This is the best thing I've seen in this thread. The GPL applies to
developers and distributors who want to use free software in their
productions, as in re-using other's code.

It does not apply to users. The whole intent of the GPL is to free
users to be able to use their stuff. Stock Debian is pure GPL.
Debian is not to blame if its user slurps from debian-multimedia.
When/if they morph into devs or distribs, then they need to consider
the GPL, not before.


--
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
(*) http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html Linux Counter #80292
- - http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html Please, don't Cc: me.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 04-05-2008, 12:43 AM
Ron Johnson
 
Default

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 04/04/08 19:09, s. keeling wrote:
> Andrew Sackville-West <andrew@farwestbilliards.com>:
>> On Fri, Apr 04, 2008 at 10:04:46AM +0200, Ivan Savcic wrote:
>>> AFAIK, RMS considers only one distribution to be really and truly free
>>> -- it's the Gentoo based Ututo[1]. He talked about this in his talk he
>>> held in Belgrade, Serbia.
>> I have a problem with this. Debian, in it's default install is almost
>> assuredly GNU free. And it has the additional freedom of allowing the
>> user to choose to use non-free software within the structure of its
>> packaging system. IMO that is more free than preventing people from
>> using the software they want.
>
> I have the same problem with it.
>
> This is the best thing I've seen in this thread. The GPL applies to
> developers and distributors who want to use free software in their
> productions, as in re-using other's code.
>
> It does not apply to users. The whole intent of the GPL is to free
> users to be able to use their stuff. Stock Debian is pure GPL.
> Debian is not to blame if its user slurps from debian-multimedia.
> When/if they morph into devs or distribs, then they need to consider
> the GPL, not before.

You will think as I think, because I think rightly, and if you don't
think the same rightly I think, then you are Evil and must be
destroyed!!!

- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA USA

We want... a Shrubbery!!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD4DBQFH9ssVS9HxQb37XmcRAkUkAJ0ZqCqNMU0YSiU0Cct8aN FtC9DctgCXWJIy
T8Qmw8HsKfBigDNtv3dzlA==
=xzYB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 04-05-2008, 02:02 AM
"s. keeling"
 
Default

Mark Allums <mark@allums.com>:
> Hal Vaughan wrote:
> > stay alive. Some, those generally at the lower levels of Piaget's
> > Hierarchy of Needs, will say survival is important while those focused
> > on the higher levels (focused on self actualization) where, since it's
>
> Maslow

Thankyou for the redirect. Not that you've offered to defend it but,
Poppycock! :-) "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to
lose ..."

"The first four layers of the pyramid are what Maslow called
"deficiency needs" or "D-needs": the individual does not feel
anything if they are met, but feels anxious if they are not met."

... does not feel anything if they are met ...

This man's never been poor. When you're poor, even the meanest of
pleasures make you feel, momentarily, like a real honest to goodness
human being again (possibly even more willing to stay that way, as in
alive), and that's just what he needs most then. In that point of
one's life, anxious is a constant. Any respite, even an egg mcmuffin
or a smoke, can produce bliss. I very much doubt he ever was there.
Good for him.

My guess is he's a typical Ivory Tower researcher with little more to
go on than his theory based on no first hand evidence. Psycho-
anything is a primitive science (if that). No, I'm not a
Scientologist.


--
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
(*) http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html Linux Counter #80292
- - http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html Please, don't Cc: me.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 04-05-2008, 02:08 AM
Hal Vaughan
 
Default

On Friday 04 April 2008, Michael C wrote:
...
> There's the rub. There are practical/political impediments to the
> exercise of genuine software freedom (the whole panoply of patents,
> NDAs etc.) which no software license, no matter how "progressive",
> could ever hope to effectively combat. So it follows that if there's
> to be real software freedom, it would have to be predicated on new
> and transformed social, political and economic arrangements.

I'm not sure we don't have a large amount of freedom now. Actually, I
feel that more important than whether or not a a program is open source
is the ability to pick which product we want for a specific need. In
that way, I'd consider the current OS monopoly more of a hindrance on
freedom than that same company selling closed source products.

> But Stallman's is a utopian position, because in place of concrete
> political and economic analyses of capitalism, all he really has to
> offer politically is vague talk about extending Free Software's moral
> example into other social spheres.

I would agree, but on the other hand, I'll ask how we're ever to try to
reach or build a Utopia if we don't have a few that dare to live and
believe as if we are already there.

Hal


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 04-05-2008, 02:11 AM
Hal Vaughan
 
Default

On Friday 04 April 2008, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 04/04/08 19:09, s. keeling wrote:
> > Andrew Sackville-West <andrew@farwestbilliards.com>:
> >> On Fri, Apr 04, 2008 at 10:04:46AM +0200, Ivan Savcic wrote:
> >>> AFAIK, RMS considers only one distribution to be really and truly
> >>> free -- it's the Gentoo based Ututo[1]. He talked about this in
> >>> his talk he held in Belgrade, Serbia.
> >>
> >> I have a problem with this. Debian, in it's default install is
> >> almost assuredly GNU free. And it has the additional freedom of
> >> allowing the user to choose to use non-free software within the
> >> structure of its packaging system. IMO that is more free than
> >> preventing people from using the software they want.
> >
> > I have the same problem with it.
> >
> > This is the best thing I've seen in this thread. The GPL applies
> > to developers and distributors who want to use free software in
> > their productions, as in re-using other's code.
> >
> > It does not apply to users. The whole intent of the GPL is to free
> > users to be able to use their stuff. Stock Debian is pure GPL.
> > Debian is not to blame if its user slurps from debian-multimedia.
> > When/if they morph into devs or distribs, then they need to
> > consider the GPL, not before.
>
> You will think as I think, because I think rightly, and if you don't
> think the same rightly I think, then you are Evil and must be
> destroyed!!!

Sounds like Randy Scouse Git:

Why don't you be like me?
Why don't you stop and see?
Why don't you hate who I hate,
Kill who I kill to be free?

-- Micky Dolenz (and sung by the Monkees)


Hal


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 12:44 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org