MESSAGE
| DATE | 2006-05-29 |
| FROM | Ruben Safir
|
| SUBJECT | Subject: [rick@linuxmafia.com: Re: [Balug-talk] [rick@linuxmafia.com: Re: [rick@linuxmafia.com: Re: [NYLXS - HANGOUT] Its a sorry day for The Linux?Journal]]]
|
----- Forwarded message from Rick Moen -----
X-Original-To: balug-talk-at-lists.balug.org
Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 01:06:49 -0700
From: Rick Moen
To: balug-talk-at-lists.balug.org
In-Reply-To:
X-Mas: Bah humbug.
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11+cvs20060403
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP:
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: rick-at-linuxmafia.com
Subject: Re: [Balug-talk] [rick-at-linuxmafia.com: Re: [rick-at-linuxmafia.com:
Re: [NYLXS - HANGOUT] Its a sorry day for The Linux?Journal]]
X-BeenThere: balug-talk-at-lists.balug.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6
Precedence: list
List-Id:
List-Unsubscribe: ,
List-Archive:
List-Post:
List-Help:
List-Subscribe: ,
Errors-To: balug-talk-bounces-at-lists.balug.org
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 19599
[Snipping from headers the recently added "hangout-at-mrbrklyn.com",
which appears to be a mailing list of which I'm not a member.]
Quoting Richard M. Stallman (rms-at-gnu.org):
> It's not a change of subject. We only know people's goals from what
> they say.
That's a rather odd thing to say, and (in my view) a very dubious
starting premise for you to use, in your argument: Depressingly often,
people's statements are about the worst possible guides to their goals,
because either they are unrealistic, or they speak impulsively, or they
are conflicted, etc.
> They don't SAY they have goals like those of the free software
> movement.
If you'll review the prior thread, you'll find a paragraph I found in
about a two-minute search on OSI's Web site to refute a similar
assertion (http://www.opensource.org/advocacy/faq.php). It's the one
that starts out "The Open Source Initiative is a marketing program for
free software."
You object that they don't use the language you would prefer. Yet, it
is quite evident that they are in fact seeking the same goal.
[Eric:]
> He likes free software, and would like to encourage it; but he rejects
> privately as well as publicly the free software movement's goal of a
> world free of proprietary software, and our basic position that
> proprietary software is unethical and antisocial.
Indeed, I am sure many proponents of open source do not share your
conviction that we should all seek the total elimination of proprietary
software, so, if you insist that your allies share all of your goals in
full measure, you may have few. Disturbingly for your viewpoint, this
concern also applies to proponents of free software.
> No, I am speaking from lots of experience.
And yet, you remain just as non-specific as before.
> That's a weak argument, since the owner could easily satisfy his
> customers by making some provision for his possible disappearance.
I'm sorry, I think you missed the point: Unless (_and_ until) that
provision is the conversion to free software, it merely defers the
abandonware day of reckoning.
> And it is mostly inapplicable if the owner is a corporation.
Not at all. Corporations lose interest in markets all the time. If you
read my reply to Nicholas Petreley, you'll notice I cited Corel
Corporation's withdrawal of its "WordPerfect for Linux" as an example of
exactly this effect.
> Users might respond, "I will cross that bridge if I come to it.
And they indeed do. The hypothetical open source advocate I was
envisioning replies "Yes, we've seen those ephemeral bridges come and
go." We got tired of finding them vanished at someone else's whim."
> As a practical response, that is valid.
And, from the open source advocate's perspective, pathetically
short-sighted. Thus my point.
> The main reason to reject this program is an ethical reason.
I cannot fault you for being not very good at writing the other guys'
rhetoric, but you're just not such.
>> An argument from the standpoint of lack of evidence,
>
> Torvalds expressed his position quite explicitly and clearly.
You are changing the subject, alas. You stated: "I would be surprised
if the OSI Web site presents any argument to the contrary [of Torvalds's
endorsement of BitKeeper]. I said _that_ is an argument from the
standpoint of lack of evidence.
I.e.: If you think the OSI Web site presents no argument on a subject,
shouldn't you really look? In fact, to be fair, shouldn't you do at
least some perfunctory searching for what OSI has _said_ concerning
BitKeeper?
> The OSI decided how far its purview should extend, and that decision
> is the basis for my point.
Yes, surprise: They are not part of a universal ideological advocacy
cause. Yet, they seek to advance the same primary goals you do, which
you pretty much never credit. That is really not my affair; I just note
it in passing.
> That's my point: the OSI has chosen to place a limit its concern which
> puts this kind of question beyond it.
Notice that you begrudge acknowledgement of my point, where you had stated
based on no information whatsoever that you'd be "surprised" if OSI made
a statement (on its Web site) that argued against Torvalds's position on the
subject. McVoy tried to get an OSI endorsement, and was coldly rebuffed.
Now, you say it's not good enough that they didn't coldly rebuff McVoy
in the right sort of language -- on the right grounds? Gee, that's
being awfully picky.
You're certainly absolutely right that OSI is not an ideological
advocacy organisation. The way they are organised (IRS 501(c)(3)
status) is incompatible with that, for reasons noted separately. You
don't like that; I simply note it as a fact -- and note that they aim
for the same end-result you do. Probably modulo the question of totally
eradicating proprietary software from the globe, of course.
> If you're talking about the OSI, I did not disregard them. However,
> my mention of Torvalds was neither careless nor an error. He is as
> influential as any of today's OSI board members in shaping and
> presenting the open source viewpoint--whether he claims to speak for
> anyone else or not.
My point solely was that _if_ someone disregards OSI and goes instead
for some quotation from Torvalds as somehow being central to "open
source", then the critic raises the obvious suspicion that he/she can't
find relevant evidence from the _real_ canonical spokesmen for that
movement.
_______________________________________________
balug-talk mailing list
balug-talk-at-lists.balug.org
http://lists.balug.org/listinfo.cgi/balug-talk-balug.org
----- End forwarded message -----
--
__________________________
Brooklyn Linux Solutions
So many immigrant groups have swept through our town
that Brooklyn, like Atlantis, reaches mythological
proportions in the mind of the world - RI Safir 1998
DRM is THEFT - We are the STAKEHOLDERS - RI Safir 2002
http://fairuse.nylxs.com
"Yeah - I write Free Software...so SUE ME"
http://www.mrbrklyn.com - Consulting
http://www.inns.net <-- Happy Clients
http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software
http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/resources - Unpublished Archive or stories and articles from around the net
http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/downtown.html - See the New Downtown Brooklyn....
|
|
