Re: foundation-list Digest, Vol 68, Issue 13

Em 14-12-2009 00:26, Philip Van Hoof escreveu:
On Sun, 2009-12-13 at 13:34 +0000, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
Em 13-12-2009 12:44, Philip Van Hoof escreveu:

Richard's claim that proprietary is illegitimate is enforcement. He's
making a philosophic mistake that contradicts his own ideology of free

Choice of the master is not free choice for a slave. It only looks like
"free choice" to other masters uninvolved in the choice.

Ridiculous hyperbole.

Oh, so you're left with just insults?

Free choice isn't enforceable. You can only convince people of it.
  >>  I think Richard has correctly highlighted the fact that the GNOME
  >>  Planet could better promote free software.
  >  That's not his only request, though. He's requesting GNOME to claim
  >  that proprietary software is illegitimate. Let's focus on that.

The coin of software freedom has two sides to conving people to buy it:
   0) promotion of Free Software
   1) critic of proprietary software

Just like you can't educate a child just by teaching him the good
examples, you have to critic the bad examples in front of the child:
there's no law against being unpolite, it's perfectly legal, but
shouldn't one repress unpolite behaviours when a child exhibits them?

You're assuming developers are children who have to be punished into
making choices.

No, you are. I simply made a parallel comparison. Any educated person will have no problem in understanding that.

And I never talked about punishment either. You seem to have an obcession with it, confusing critic with punishment.

GNOME, both as a community and as a foundation, should teach the good
examples and critic the bad ones.

GNOME should stick to teaching the good examples. Criticizing the bad
ones is only counter productive.

I think you should read a bit more about teaching before making such claims.

You teach people by cooperating with them. What Miguel has been doing is
a good example how to convince people of (some) new ideas.

I'm sorry, what does he have to do with this?

As such, I don't think this is enough:

  >  We already do this:

Stopping here is quite insufficient. To me, proprietary software is
illegitimate. Not in the legal sense, as the law allows that, but in the
human sense. It teaches that sharing is evil. It tries to hold you as a
slave to it's proprietary formats, and lock you in as a defenseless

But to me it's no wonder you should think it is, specially since you
seem pretty adamant against critic of proprietary software.

It seems to me you're one of those people who think the freedom of
speech of others is a shotgun pointed at your head forcing you to do
stuff in a certain way they prefer.

It's stunning that first you are talking about repressing childish
behavior, talking about how bad being impolite is ...

And here you are doing argumentum ad hominem.

It undermines your credibility.
Ever heard of filters? If Richard Stallman get's so much into your
nerves, just make a filter to delete his emails automatically.

Did I say Richard gets into my nerves? Why would I want to delete his
E-mails? Why wouldn't I want to know how he thinks, what he writes?

Why are you talking on behalf of me, anyway?

Don't create more pointless flame wars or appeal to loose-loose schisms
as that's what you're doing.

Nonsense and more ad hominem.

Pottle... kettle...

Respect is earned, not due. You haven't behaved in a way that deserves my respect.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]