NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #1/NN_1993_1.iso/spool/gnu/misc/discuss/4280

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-07 | 9.6 KB

Xref: sparky gnu.misc.discuss:4280 talk.philosophy.misc:3198
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!kuhub.cc.ukans.edu!husc-news.harvard.edu!husc10.harvard.edu!zeleny
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
From: [e-mail] (Michael Zeleny)
Date: 7 Jan 93 10:46:41 EST
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: The Phallogocentric Cabal
Nntp-Posting-Host: husc10.harvard.edu
Lines: 205

In article <[e-mail]>
[e-mail] (Ciaran O'Donnell) writes:

>
>            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.

Agreed.  I shall endeavor to abstain from returning insults in kind.
Live and learn.

>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                           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.
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Agreed.

>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.

Agreed.

>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.

Agreed most emphatically.

>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).

Agreed.

>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.

Agreed.

>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.

I will go further: if the FSF are really the good guys, then they
should be able to demonstrate this without any coersion, whether
verbal harassment or legal prosecution, by asking instead of
demanding.

>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.

Agreed.

>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.

I do admire the diabolical cleverness of the all-appropriating clause.
Furthermore, I agree with the advocates of the FSF, that it is totally
effective in fulfilling its own ostensible purpose.  However, I do not
think that this success in any way vindicates the egregious conflict
between the acquisitiveness stipulated by the GPL, and the freedom
trumpeted by the FSF.  Irrespectively of the specific and carefully
circumscribed liberties to use, allowed by the GPL, the enormous legal
restrictions it places on the conditions of copying and redistribution
(surely a genuine kind of use) render all the GNU-derived code exclusive
property of the FSF, in accordance with the existing definitions of
intellectual property, as well as the commonsensical notion of property
as goods one can dispose of as one sees fit.  Imagine for a moment a
world in which FSF had succeeded in attaining its self-professed goal of
"liberating", i.e. appropriating, all existing software, and is free to
distribute it on the terms it dictates, while permitting only a fraction
of this freedom to anyone else.  The two most striking aspects of this
world would be a total lack of privacy for the programmer, and a
universal monopoly on the terms of distribution of all his work.  I
challenge anyone to think up a more restrictive paternalistic scenario,
pertaining to the programming activity.

>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.

Nuance: the FSF wants all of us to assist it in its own goal of software
appropriation.  To distinguish a good kind of software appropriation
(i.e. acquisition under the terms of the GPL) from a bad kind of
appropriation (i.e. the dreaded hoarding) is conduct unbecoming of a
self-described charitable organization, and ridiculous in a profit-making
enterprise.  FSF should either change the conditions, or drop the rhetoric.

>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.

Agreed.

>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.

Agreed.

>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.

Agreed.

>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]

cordially,
mikhail [e-mail]
"Les beaulx bastisseurs nouveaulx de pierres mortes ne sont escriptz
en mon livre de vie.  Je ne bastis que pierres vives: ce sont hommes."