My letter to Richard Stallman, pt. 2

For the unaware: there's a discussion that has been going back and forth between certain members of Section-9 / The Wired. The argument is about the FSF and FOSS. Now, as a personal rule due to difference of opinion, I am not a fan of Richard Stallman. I don't believe that it is the duty of the FSF or any of its representatives to state that all software should be free (as in beer). I do believe that an author, artist or developer (they're all the same thing, believe it or not...) should be able to do what they want with their software, however. This is the spirit embraced by the GPL, the free as in freedom portion. The statement that I quoted from Richard in my previous post is what pissed me off (I'll not be so nice here; it's my blog).

I think it's garbage for Mr. Stallman to attempt to speak on behalf of everyone that he associates with by stated that patents for software should be abolished. The GPL allows authors to do whatever they want with their software that's released under the GPL, and that includes patenting it. Now do I think that patenting GPL licensed software is anything effective? No. It's really inne-fucking-fective, but it's your beast. You should be able to do what you want with it, not what Richard Stallman or any other right- or left-wing ding dong says you should.

Now this particular post isn't in response to anyone but Stallman. The man just pisses me off. So, I formally pose the following questions to him, if he decides to read my dinky little blog: Who the fuck do you think you are trying to force people to follow your way because you think it's better? Do you seriously think that it's better to abolish software patents when corporatized America is simply going to take the lack of patent to steal software, regardless of the license it's released under? And, if you get your way and I'm right about corporate thievery of FOSS, are you going to foot the bill for these small-time developers to sue?

To be completely honest I think you're worse than Microsoft, Oracle and all of these other corporate America/multinational entities: someone who wants to force people to do things their way or none at all. Microsoft wants to prosecute people who have supposedly stolen their software. Let them beat at the wall for a while, it won't hurt any of us. Oracle doesn't fight battles it can't win but, as the leader in the database market (bitch if you want, it's the truth). But you, sir, are a fucking leech on the OSS movement when you make disparaging comments and seemingly try to force people to do things your way or none. Don't pollute the GPL with your right-wing horse puckey.

Now, what the hell is so wrong with people using and developing proprietary software that helps people use their computers? People want to play DVDs on their computer, but you would rather remove CSS. What the fuck? I want to use my iPod in Linux but I can't because Apple wants to keep their stuff closed source but you want to force them to make it open source. Again, WTF? I'd love to see MS Office on Linux. Not because I use it. Hell, I hate it. But because it would help Linux grow into the mainstream market, which is exactly what we need. But would you limit the growth of the strongest soapbox FOSS has so nobody could stand on it and be heard when they speak of the benefits of open source? Because making it so Linux could not use proprietary software, which seems to be the direction the GPL v3 is going (I don't speak legalese fluently), would cripple it like breaking a child's legs, making unable to walk.

Mr. Richard Stallman, if you do decide to read my pitiful little blog: If my statements about your beliefs, assertions or anything else are incorrect please feel free to comment. I'll be more than happy to correct my errors. But I doubt I'll have to make any changes to what I've posted.

DF of the... however long it's been now
Me. Why? Because I'm arguing (most likely with myself) on the internet. And arguing on the internet is like running in the special olympics: no matter who wins you're still retarded. (And anyone who takes that as an insult has a) no sense of humor and b) a misguided definition of the word.)

Gryyphyn, out.

1 comment:

  1. Hi Gryyphen,

    This is not a new stance by the FSF, in 1992 RMS published an essay entiteld "Why Software Should be Free," www.gnu.org/philosophy/shouldbefree.html. There is also a newer essay published in 1994, entitled "Why Software Should Not Have Owners," www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html.

    In either case, we make the premise that a user of software is no less important than an author and that their interests and needs have equal weight. If you do not share this premise, then it is likely that there will be many fundamental disagreements between us.

    I hope that this helps in some way :-)

    Take care,

    Joshua Gay
    Campaigns Manager
    Free Software Foundation


Flamers will be neutered, pulverized, drawn and quartered and their heads will become my next hood ornament while their bodies will be burned and the ashes thrown in to my personal portal to the 7th level of Hell.