Many FSF Priority Projects Still Not Progressing

[AnonymousCoward]

fuck off idiot

[Paradox Uncreated]

Why don`t you go and take the number of dicks up your ass you want, and leave decent people alone.

[randomizer]

d00d, if this thing with "freedom" was so important, why not "freedom software", and not "free/libre" (free as in speech, NOT OPEN SOURCE, that offends us etc.) Don`t you understand that this becomes too obscure?

That's semantics for you. The differences are often obscure. I assume there's a reason why he doesn't refer to it as "freedom software", but I haven't asked him. Since you have been in contact with him already, maybe you could ask him yourself.

Opensource is opensource though, but the point is, if you want to reach a professional audience, and people in general, you have to drop silly attitudes, and make something that decent conservative people can use.

The FSF is an advocacy/activist group for libre software. If they make compromises it weakens their position (regardless of whether or not you think it's weak already). Do you know why Stallman hasn't yet faded into history, but still draws crowds to listen to his keynotes and still pops up in the news? Do you know why we are talking about him right now? Because he doesn't compromise no matter how cooky people think he is. He doesn't just talk the talk like a politician. He's not interested in the commercial success of free software as an end, only as a means to its wider use. He isn't going to sell out on his views just to get a few businesses to install Emacs. Whether you or I agree with him is irrelevant, his views are his views.

[Paradox Uncreated]

I actually got in contact with him, because I wanted to further popularize the message of opensource. And contacted him to ask about using his voice in a techno track. Now he started this idolaterous preaching on "free software". But as I said, I thought maybe he had spent some time thinking about it. But no, it is not something I find to be related to natural human conduct. To make exceptions for, and obscure my language, and make things absurd, in relation to how simple it can be, is completely unacceptable. I did actually put forth the idea of "freedom software". Atleast then you don`t have to always make statemets about "free/libre beer" etc.

Now not only was that obscure, but I asked for a non-noisy recording of his voice, because really, if you are going to do something that gains some level of popularity, it needs to be good. But he sendt me a link to a recording of less-than-mobile quality voice. Which is worse than most youtube recordings, and I even asked for one better than most youtube recordings, because they are useless aswell, unless you are going to direct yourself to a very small audience.

About Stallmann not comprimising, imagine how MUCH MORE people would talk about him, if he didn`t try to impose odd rules on people, that has no basis in reality (as I experience it anyway), and reduce his audience to people who can stand odd rules. And even then I don`t think most people are aware of that. Which is good That is a mercy from God I think.

I don`t think if we agree or not is irrelevant, why should it be?

Infact most of us live in a democracy. That means WE run the country. We vote in the politicians we want. And you say he doesn`t talk about politics, but he does, and I also know many linux-users say they don`t talk about politics or religion. But sweeping stuff under the mat, and trying to pretend it doesn`t exist, is not going to solve anything. You have to try and get into the problem, make up your mind, apply your intelligence, and excellence to politics and religion, just as you would do to code.

Ultimately I hope you will find a human-centric view, like that expressed in the Quran 30:30.

Infact not doing so, is to sell-out. That is to be an opinion-prostitute, who cannot voice his opinion, due to the fact that it does not fit commercial agendas.

And what would you say if you had "libre/beer" speech in the goverment? Do you see it fails because of obscurity?

Now OPEN SOURCE, ofcourse, is already used by the government.

Peace.

[randomizer]

I did actually put forth the idea of "freedom software". Atleast then you don`t have to always make statemets about "free/libre beer" etc.

What did he say about this specifically? I am interested to know.

About Stallmann not comprimising, imagine how MUCH MORE people would talk about him, if he didn`t try to impose odd rules on people, that has no basis in reality (as I experience it anyway), and reduce his audience to people who can stand odd rules. And even then I don`t think most people are aware of that. Which is good That is a mercy from God I think.

I don't think we'd talk about him much at all. He would just be another hypocrite that says one thing but does another. People without conviction are only tolerated for so long. That is why political parties get voted in and out regularly: they tell you what you want to hear to get your vote and then do precisely what they said they wouldn't months later.

I don`t think if we agree or not is irrelevant, why should it be?

You may have misunderstood what I meant. Our opinion is irrelevant in that it won't change his opinion. No matter what we think of him he is going to continue sharing his views until he's on his death bed. I think you'd agree with me there.

And you say he doesn`t talk about politics, but he does

Well, no, I didn't say that actually. I just said that he doesn't talk like a politician. I know full well that he does talk about politics. In fact he probably talks more about politics than free software, as strange as that may seem.

And what would you say if you had "libre/beer" speech in the goverment? Do you see it fails because of obscurity?

Governments talk too much as it is, why would I want them to have even more free speech?

[Paradox Uncreated]

I don`t think you understood most of my post, and if you think I believe I cannot change his opinion, you are wrong.

[Paradox Uncreated]

Start singing the song! Everybodys changing!

Peace.

[randomizer]

I don`t think you understood most of my post, and if you think I believe I cannot change his opinion, you are wrong.

Well there's certainly no harm trying, but nobody has succeeded in almost 3 decades, so you've got a bit of a challenge ahead of you

[Paradox Uncreated]

And well quite frankly if he doesn`t change, GNUs are only good for burgers if you know what I mean.

Anyone can take that idea and carry it forward in a decent way. A licence that promotes opensource and stays opensource, is what it is about.

[Paradox Uncreated]

Maximal opensource licence.
---------------------------

This program, plugin, or function is licenced under the Maximal Opensource Licence.
That means that it`s source should always stay open source. And any changes must be available with
the branches. And its derivatives can never in anyway be released as closed source.

Authorship can be included, but it is not neccesary. A list of changes by author is though recommended.

--

This will also fix the complaints about GplV3 being too complicated. (obscure?)

Peace.