Stallman on the Linux Action Show
- Anmelden oder Registrieren um Kommentare zu schreiben
Why respecting a company that does not respect your freedom?
As for SaaS it is somewhat worse than proprietary software where the user at least receives a binary (not of much help but better than nothing). Not talking about the privacy issue of sending your data to a third party.
You seem to be concerned about Google's revenues (I am not) and considers that "guaranteeing income" necessarily is good (it is not: robbing, developing proprietary software, etc. are paths to make money in an unethical way). The free software movement is concerned about social and ethical issues (that I believe far more important) and has better economical/political fallouts: local jobs in the small support companies vs. mega-corporation abusing from their political power.
The Linux Foundation does not deal with Free software but with open source. Its goal basically is Linux (the kernel) world domination. There is nothing subversive there.
Can a mod please lock this thread?
It's just troll/flame bait
It is a constructive conversation. Don't be jealous because you lack the power to get 200 replies in a post that you started.
Just remember that RMS is a celebrity and with most celebrities they personally don't care about you. Sad reality to you I am sure, but he is no different than the CEO of a large proprietary company. He sells a product or a preachy message (like those tv evangelists) and he only needs you buy his product. Without it, he is irrelevant and his whole purpose to pay his bills is to keep people like yourself drinking the kool-aid without questioning his authority.
He is the self inducted mascot of the FSF and his callous viewpoints DO represent the organization.
"It is a constructive conversation. Don't be jealous because you lack the power to get 200 replies in a post that you started."
Jeez, you are really a troll aren't you? This topic isn't constructive, infact much of the replies you refuse to acknowledge and frequently go off-topic. You hold no "power" on these forums.
This topic is not constructive because you just ignore what people wrote to you.
RMS is very different from "the CEO of a large proprietary company". His objective is social/ethical and not financial at all. RMS makes a *very* modest living by defending his viewpoints. Given his exceptional technical skills, he would be rich today if he would have followed the evil path of proprietary software.
RMS does not "need you to buy his product". Otherwise he would precisely do what you seem to regret: he would not "badmouth" large companies so that these companies invite him.
His viewpoints are *separated* from those of the FSF. They are on stallman.org and go far beyond free software (whereas the FSF exclusively focuses on free software).
RMS also has personal views where he believes pedophilia and necrophilia
should be legalized, provided all parties involved are in agreement. I
have personally written to him and verified this quote is accurate, and
not taken out of context. It is his belief.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman
Search for "pedophilia" or "necrophilia" and you'll find that section.
It is for this reason that I have started a new free software
foundation, called Liberty Software Foundation. This all happened last
week, so I am still figuring things out and getting started.
I wanted an official vehicle to continue the work I've found beneficial
from the FSF, but without any affiliation with Stallman. Support is
welcomed.
Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin
On 07/16/2012 07:52 AM, name at domain wrote:
> This topic is not constructive because you just ignore what people
> wrote to you.
>
> RMS is very different from "the CEO of a large proprietary company".
> His objective is social/ethical and not financial at all. RMS makes a
> *very modest* living by defending his viewpoints. Given his
> exceptional technical skills, he would be rich today if he would have
> gone to the path of proprietary companies.
>
> RMS does not "need you to buy his product". Otherwise he would
> precisely do what you seem to regret: he would not "badmouth" large
> companies so that these companies invite him.
>
> His viewpoints are *separated* from those of the FSF. They are on
> stallman.org and go far beyond free software (whereas the FSF
> exclusively focuses on free software).
>
A religious free software foundation is really going to catch on.
> RMS also has personal views where he believes pedophilia and
> necrophilia should be legalized, provided all parties involved are in
> agreement. I have personally written to him and verified this quote
> is accurate, and not taken out of context. It is his belief.
>
> http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman
>
> Search for "pedophilia" or "necrophilia" and you'll find that section.
If X is not a subset of Y, Y is not a subset of X, both are not empty,
and X is harmful and illegal, Y itself isn't harmful, and we usually
speak about the intersection of X and Y, should we prohibit Y? Harming
"children" (also e.g. by arresting them for sharing pictures of
themselves with other "children") is bad and isn't the same as what RMS
writes about.
> It is for this reason that I have started a new free software
> foundation, called Liberty Software Foundation. This all happened
> last week, so I am still figuring things out and getting started.
>
> http://libsf.org
>
> I wanted an official vehicle to continue the work I've found
> beneficial from the FSF, but without any affiliation with Stallman.
> Support is welcomed.
I won't support your organization for the beliefs stated there. If you
support a master, why not support software controlled by a master.
Another issue that I consider harmful are the modified (ignoring the
licensing notice stated there) and renamed licenses. Unless "this
license" has a non-literal meaning, they seem incompatible with much
free software.
A life's work giving full and proper credit over to God is not for
everybody. No hard feelings. :-)
Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin
On 07/16/2012 09:03 AM, Michał Masłowski wrote:
>> RMS also has personal views where he believes pedophilia and
>> necrophilia should be legalized, provided all parties involved are in
>> agreement. I have personally written to him and verified this quote
>> is accurate, and not taken out of context. It is his belief.
>>
>> http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman
>>
>> Search for "pedophilia" or "necrophilia" and you'll find that section.
> If X is not a subset of Y, Y is not a subset of X, both are not empty,
> and X is harmful and illegal, Y itself isn't harmful, and we usually
> speak about the intersection of X and Y, should we prohibit Y? Harming
> "children" (also e.g. by arresting them for sharing pictures of
> themselves with other "children") is bad and isn't the same as what RMS
> writes about.
>
>> It is for this reason that I have started a new free software
>> foundation, called Liberty Software Foundation. This all happened
>> last week, so I am still figuring things out and getting started.
>>
>> http://libsf.org
>>
>> I wanted an official vehicle to continue the work I've found
>> beneficial from the FSF, but without any affiliation with Stallman.
>> Support is welcomed.
> I won't support your organization for the beliefs stated there. If you
> support a master, why not support software controlled by a master.
>
> Another issue that I consider harmful are the modified (ignoring the
> licensing notice stated there) and renamed licenses. Unless "this
> license" has a non-literal meaning, they seem incompatible with much
> free software.
As you write, those are "personal views" and have absolutely nothing to do with the FSF. We do not need another foundation, especially one that would mix free software with completely unrelated subjects such as religion (your website seems to be more about "God" than about free software).
Do you believe that the president of a foundation should never express her/his opinions on completely unrelated subjects and on a website that is completely unrelated with that of the foundation? I don't. Notice moreover that stallman.org clearly states it on the home page:
This is the personal web site of Richard Stallman.
The views expressed here are my personal views, not those of the Free Software Foundation or the GNU Project.
On 07/16/2012 09:19 AM, name at domain wrote:
> As you write, those are "personal views" and have absolutely nothing
> to do with the FSF. We do not need another foundation.
The two are inseparable. You cannot isolate damning components of your
being over here, and then have a set of productive,
positive-contribution things over there. If you have the damning
components as part of your fundamental belief system, everything you do
is tainted.
I realize that in general society doesn't see it this way. But it is
the way it is.
> Do you believe that the president of a foundation should never express
> her/his opinions on completely unrelated subjects and on a website
> that is completely unrelated with that of the foundation? I don't.
> Notice moreover that stallman.org clearly states it on the home page:
I believe a person reflects their entire core belief structure in
everything they do. And if there are any components which are damning
... then the entire thing must be addressed with the attempt made to
change that course, and if it can't be, then it must be avoided.
I tried to communicate with RMS over this. He is passionate about his
views being correct. So ... I leave it there and move on.
> This is the personal web site of Richard Stallman.
> The views expressed here are my personal views, not those of the Free
> Software Foundation or the GNU Project.
The two are inseparable. The man is what he is, and the things he
contributes to will be affected by him.
There are spiritual components to our existence which come off of us and
influence others even when we're not there any longer. We must severe
ties to keep ourselves clean (unspotted from the world).
I am not perfect at this yet as I have 42 years of mindset-inertia and
societal teachings working continually against me, but I am learning,
understanding, and putting into practice that which I believe on the
inside. It's a hard walk. I am alone in it right now. My family,
friends, they've all left me to go and pursue stuff of this world. Yet,
in my heart I know what I am doing is right ... so, as painful as it is
(and it is painful), I proceed.
It's okay if nobody wants to assist me. It's okay if I am considered
something other than desirable for pursuing this course. It's what I
must do.
Hope this makes sense.
Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 07/16/2012 09:35 AM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> On 07/16/2012 09:19 AM, name at domain wrote:
>> As you write, those are "personal views" and have absolutely nothing
to do with the FSF. We do not need another foundation.
>
> The two are inseparable. You cannot isolate damning components of your
being over here, and then have a set of productive,
positive-contribution things over there. If you have the damning
components as part of your fundamental belief system, everything you do
is tainted.
You lost me at "From God..." at http://libsf.org/. That's more
disturbing than any of RMSs personal opinions.
Hopefully you'll realize why at some point. I'll just move on from this
thread now.
If we could go back to the subject at hand, Trisquel, I'd love that too.
> [...]
Cheers,
Fabian Rodriguez
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: PGP/Mime available upon request
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAlAEHfcACgkQfUcTXFrypNXE/QCfcOPn21lYBw2NGYNQkzENbdEa
jiMAnjkdDBa8+wAizf57wKmHIQLpp5e5
=p8rw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
I certainly can separate a man from a group he belongs to (or even a group he heads). Can't you see the difference between Pie XII, which did not condemn the Jewish extermination, and the Roman Church? Can't you see the difference between the Bush administration, which indirectly killed tens (hundreds?) of thousands of civilians based on false assumptions, and the American people? I can go on like that (but I think I have already won the Godwin point). To be in phase with your ideas, I hope you have created you own country with your own religion, etc. Notice however that it does not look very compatible with the notion of fraternity/brotherhood.
I believe that the most efficient associations are those focusing on the subject they defend/promote. In this way, anybody agreeing with the related views (being a consequence of some greater goals or not) can step in. The FSF is an example of such an association. Again, and rms insists on it, rms' views, expressed on stallman.org, are *not* those of the FSF, which exclusively deals with free software.
That is why I think your association can only harm the Free Software cause by fragmentation (your website is clearly built in opposition to the FSF). Of course, you are entitled to disagree and follow your own opinions. With the same logics, we would have associations for free software and Islam, free software and LGBT, free software and ecology, etc. I simply believe that it is far more efficient to separate those issues. In this way people with different backgrounds/opinions can contribute (I do believe in fraternity).
Believe it or not but a lot of people can act for the good of humanity ("do the right thing") without needing a "damning God" (whatever it means) to motivate their acts.
Repeated jabs at rms about his views on disgusting unnatural s*x acts compelled me to read those articles & corresponding stallman.org pages. I am absolutely shocked to find that the rumors are indeed true. Earlier, i thought they were just rumors spread by propriety software companies.
.wikiqoute, .rhinophytonec.., .extreme, .Dutch
This is so bad, cant imagine how much badly this is going to effect FSF's image. I still just cant believe it that RMS has these sick ideas.
LibSF is defintely not the answer to any issues here. LibSF = Freeware (copy,distribute;But, no modifications), nothing new about it. Giving it a spiritual touch is okay, but LibSF is preaching only Christianity.
Emblem(signature image) used is associated with Churches; Describing LibSF as 'God fearing alternative' and then mentioning Jesus in footer; all seems kinda like you are imposing Christianity.
LibSF is DOA.
On 07/16/2012 10:26 AM, name at domain wrote:
> Repeated jabs at rms about his views on disgusting unnatural s*x acts
> compelled me to go searching out on the internet. I am absolutely
> shocked to find that the rumors are indeed true. Earlier, i thought
> they were just rumors spread by propriety software companies.
>
> .[http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman#On_sex wikiqoute],
> .[http://stallman.org/archives/2003-may-aug.html rhinophytonec..],
> .[http://stallman.org/articles/extreme.html extreme],
> .[http://www.stallman.org/archives/2006-may-aug.html#05%20June%202006%20%28Dutch%20paedophiles%20form%20political%20party%29
> Dutch]
>
> This is so bad, cant imagine how much badly this is going to effect
> FSF's image. I still just cant believe it that RMS has these sick ideas.
>
> LibSF is defintely not the answer to any issues here. LibSF =
> Freeware(copy,distribute;But, no modifications), nothing new about it.
> Giving it a spiritual touch is okay, but LibSF is preaching only
> Christianity.
LifSF is continuing the work of the FSF and GNU. We use a copyleft
protected licensing scheme, not freeware, not public domain. We are
built around the central axioms of free software in the traditional
copyleft plus four fundamental freedoms / rights sense. We are just
doing it away from Stallman.
> Emblem(signature image) used is associated with
> [http://vloeberghs.com/SheperdoftheHills.html Churches]; Describing
> LibSF as 'God fearing alternative' and then mentioning Jesus in
> footer; all seems kinda like you are imposing Christianity.
Christianity *IS* at the heart of why LibSF exists. We recognize that
everything we have, everything we are, everything we can be, that all of
it is a gift which comes from God, and that the rock upon which we must
build everything is Jesus Christ.
Free software, the idea of giving that which you possess unto others,
that they might take your work and receive it, and possibly improve upon
it, making the end result better than you individually were capable of
doing alone, is the very central idea of what Jesus Christ. When He
came here, He gave everything. Very few received Him, but it was
offered to all, and it was completely free.
It is my best attempt at devoting my talents and life to Jesus Christ.
I am probably making every mistake possible as I am pioneering this
effort (to my knowledge at least) ... but I pray I will get it right in
time.
> LibSF is DOA.
The image may be from them. It will be replaced at some point soon. It
was one I found online and edited.
LibSF has no affiliation with a particular church building. We are
Christians across the globe working together for Jesus Christ.
Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin
"Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed." LibSF GPL
oops my mistake, I wrongly read above lines as being the summary of the license, instead it is regarding permission of the license document itself. sorry about that,
> Christianity *IS* at the heart of why LibSF exists. > We recognize that everything we have, everything > we are, everything we can be, that all of > it is a gift which comes from God, and that the > rock upon which we must build everything is Jesus Christ.
> Free software, the idea of giving that which > you possess unto others, that they might take > your work and receive it, and possibly improve upon > it, making the end result better than you individually > were capable of doing alone, is the very central idea > of what Jesus Christ. When He came here, He gave > everything. Very few received Him, but it was > offered to all, and it was completely free.Intelligent attempt to co·erce Free Software users into Christianity. From the website & you ideas, its pretty clear your *main* intention is not to exclude RMS from Free Software, but a rather sinister one. You want to misguide Free Software users into thinking that by believing in Free software, they are actually believing in Christianity and hence they are Christian in that sense.
World needs to liberate itself from brainwashed ideas about God. God is God. There is no need to put a tag on God like a face or statue or cross or monument. God does not want you to misguide people.
Being technically redundant to GNU public license, it does not have much chance to establish itself. However, You can promote it in churches to co-erce Christians into using Free Software. Other than that its pretty devilish, as non-christians who cannot look through your gimmick might turn away from Free Software thinking it will make them convert to Christanity.
On 07/16/2012 01:22 PM, name at domain wrote:
> "Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this
> license document, but changing it is not allowed."
> [http://libsf.org/licenses/libsf-gpl-v1.txt LibSF GPL]
>
> oops my mistake, I wrongly read above lines as being the summary of
> the license, instead it is regarding permission of the license
> document itself. sorry about that,
>
> > Christianity *IS* at the heart of why LibSF exists.
> > We recognize that everything we have, everything
> > we are, everything we can be, that all of
> > it is a gift which comes from God, and that the
> > rock upon which we must build everything is Jesus Christ.
>
> > Free software, the idea of giving that which
> > you possess unto others, that they might take
> > your work and receive it, and possibly improve upon
> > it, making the end result better than you individually
> > were capable of doing alone, is the very central idea
> > of what Jesus Christ. When He came here, He gave
> > everything. Very few received Him, but it was
> > offered to all, and it was completely free.
>
>
> Intelligent attempt to co·erce Free Software users into Christianity.
Coercion doesn't seem applicable here. LibSF exists as it exists.
Nobody has to join. Nobody has to do anything with it. I pray that
some people will.
> From the website & you ideas, its pretty clear your *main* intention
> is not to exclude RMS from Free Software, but a rather sinister one.
> You want to misguide Free Software users into thinking that by
> believing in Free software, they are actually believing in
> Christianity and hence they are Christian in that sense.
I believe that free software, the idea of giving the fruits of your
labor and work, unto others is exactly from one source: God. It's
exactly the economy of Heaven as we read it in the Bible. God's economy
is this: The more you give, the more you have to give. But here on
this earth in this flesh-based world, it's not like that. The more you
give, the less you have.
It requires a spiritual way to look at things, to understand it, not
just through worldly eyes, but as part of the spiritual, part of the
"being born again of the spirit" aspect of a Christian's walk.
> World needs to liberate itself from brainwashed ideas about God. God
> is God. There is no need to put a tag on God like a face or statue or
> cross or monument.
> God does not want you to misguide people.
God lives in us. He does not live in buildings made by men. He's
inside of us. We are His temple.
Being born again is a real thing. I've tried to describe it to people
... the closest example I have is being a parent. Before your child was
born, you existed however you existed, and your view of yourself was
whatever it was. This is true for all of us. But after the child
comes, there's this new aspect of our existence added on to us. We are
now more than we were before. It's real, tangible, impossible to
describe, yet for people who have become parents ... no explanation is
needed, for they have felt it too.
For Christianity it's the same way. When we are born again, it's an
entire new rebirth. Our mind is changed, or thoughts are changed, or
viewpoints are changed, everything about what we thought we knew
changes. The old ways give way to the new ways. Though, being still in
this world surrounded by everything, we do still stumble, fall, even
deeply. But, we get back up and our new heart is always still working
in us and we again work for Christ.
> Being technically redundant to GNU public license, it does not have
> much chance to establish itself.
It may be a total failure. But for the projects I will work on, they
will use LibSF GPLv1, because I believe in the philosophy of the GPLv3
completely, I just can't support who it's by. When people look at the
LibSF GPLv1, they need look no further. It has come from us.
> However, You can promote it in churches to co-erce Christians into
> using Free Software.
There's no coercion in Christianity. The Lord knocks on everybody's
heart. Those people who hear Him answer, and He comes and lives with
them. It's that simple.
With our software, nobody will have to use it. But if they want to ...
here it is.
> Other than that its pretty devilish, as non-christians who cannot look
> through your gimmick might turn away from Free Software thinking it
> will make them convert to Christanity.
Nobody can become a Christian unless they are open to it, to hearing the
truth about God, to accepting that His Son, Jesus Christ, is God's only
begotten Son, born of a virgin. It is not possible to force someone to
be a Christian. It HAS to come from the inside.
If it doesn't come from the inside, it can't ever come.
What is there in LibSF is being offered. You, and everyone else, are
free NOT to use it. You're not going to hurt our feelings. We're not
going to be angry. We will continue on for those who will want to use
it. And we'll also continue praying that other people's hearts will be
opened, that they too may come to know that which we know.
God is not dead ... He lives in us. You can see Him by our actions. We
offer what we offer in love, expecting nothing in return. But if you or
anybody else wants to help, we are grateful to God for that as well.
Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin
You pitched your initiative as being based on your disagreement with RMS's views on s*x(with which, like you, i'm also in total disagreement). But, your website shows a totally different setup. And when I pointed it out, you have been going on and on about religion.
Thousand words cannot be used to sideline the ill effects of what you are doing. You need to re-think..
Re-reading this might help. I hope Jesus blesses you with some clarity.
"LibSF was created to be a God-fearing alternative to both the Linux Foundation and The FSF (Free Software Foundation), because of certain beliefs held by their founders."
I don't know if this is serious or a parody. I'm really curious because this seems in response to RMS fully supporting the objectification of children and his viewpoints being reflective of the FSF as a whole. Heck, this site even has its own GPL, Affero, and Lesser GPL licenses too.
On 07/16/2012 10:44 AM, name at domain wrote:
> "LibSF was created to be a God-fearing alternative to both the Linux
> Foundation and The FSF (Free Software Foundation), because of certain
> beliefs held by their founders."
It is not a parody. It is a fundamental difference of foundation. RMS
works with free software because he believes in it. Personally. He
doesn't have a foundation in anything other than his personal sense of
morals and ethics as to why he believes in it. This is well stated in
his book Free as in Freedom, along with countless other interviews.
Torvalds is also an atheist, describing himself as "completely
a-religious -- atheist."
For me, I cannot contribute to either of those projects. They are
founded upon people whose lives are not founded upon God, and
specifically Jesus Christ. So, I had to create something new with which
to proceed.
> I don't know if this is serious or a parody. I'm really curious
> because this seems in response to RMS fully supporting the
> objectification of children and his viewpoints being reflective of the
> FSF as a whole. Heck, this site even has its own GPL, Affero, and
> Lesser GPL licenses too.
It is serious. And as I say, I am probably making every mistake
possible in how I am getting it off the ground. It is the best I can
do, and I pray that the mistakes will be corrected over time.
I am doing this because I know that everything we are, everything we
have comes from God, and through His Son, Jesus Christ. Without our
building everything we do upon Him, nothing we do will ever stand or be
of value.
LibSF is my faith put into practice, and my beliefs put into action.
Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin
Ok, I'm closing* the comments on this troll hole. Not only is it mostly off-topic, but it revolves around bashing a person who isn't even part of the conversation, and that is just rude.
If you want to discuss whether smelling cut flowers does or not qualify as necrophilia, go to 4chan.
- Anmelden oder Registrieren um Kommentare zu schreiben