NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #1/NN_1993_1.iso/spool/gnu/misc/discuss/4276

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-07 | 6.9 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!mcsun!julienas!enst!ulysse!ciaran
From: [e-mail] (Ciaran O'Donnell)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
Summary: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 7 Jan 93 10:38:47 GMT
References: <9301022105.AA10470@raisin-scone> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: Telecom-Paris, France
Lines: 144



            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 [phone]      / Fax [phone]    / E-mail [e-mail]