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

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <rms 1407 org>]

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.
> >
> > 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:
> >   >
> >   >  http://www.gnome.org/about/
> >
> > 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
> > customer.
> >
> > 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.

Rui