Richard Stallman's thoughts on Gentoo

Message

perseguidor · Post by **perseguidor** » Sun Oct 10, 2004 5:18 pm

pjp wrote:The original post had to do with RMS' opinion of Gentoo though, not if his actions were necessary for balance.

That's right, but your original post had to do with a questioning of his authority, and that questioning was based on his similarities with Bill Gates

But don't get me wrong, I know what you mean, and I, as a software user but not developer -except for scripts and very simple things in python that have to do with my field of 'research'-, try to respect all people that create, no matter what their views are, and mind their opinions accordingly. That includes Linus Torvalds, Richard Stallman, and even Bill Gates.

The difference being, of course, that Bill Gates hasn't done crap for linux, and RMS has done an inmense amount, even when things are not going the way he really wants to; even indirectly. So if you tell me that RMS is stating his opinion about the closed source driver you wrote, then I think I'll question his authority along with you; but this is just not the case.

perseguidor · Post by **perseguidor** » Sun Oct 10, 2004 5:27 pm

moocha wrote:
perseguidor wrote:Things can be free in the real world too, you know. But most of the time they aren't, even when they could be. Freedom is not enforced. Stallman tries to do just that.

I don't know how viable that is, but I respect that -as I think you do, too- and I think it's more adequate to size these people by their ends, and not their means.
While I can follow your line of reasoning, I personally maintain that the ends never justify the means. And I do mean never, ever, under no circumstances.

I partially agree, moocha; I didn't meant to get all Machiavelian on you

. I wasn't trying to directly imply that their ends justify whatever means they make use of, but that the difference in their means is not as relevant as the difference in their ends

playfool · Post by **playfool** » Sun Oct 10, 2004 6:44 pm

I wonder what RMS has against Fedora, those fellas are the most patent concerned, only allow free code in the distro - and they contribute everything back.

perseguidor · Post by **perseguidor** » Sun Oct 10, 2004 6:54 pm

SoLC wrote:I wonder what RMS has against Fedora, those fellas are the most patent concerned, only allow free code in the distro - and they contribute everything back.

Good point... perhaps he doesn't like how Fedora is backed up by a large corporation

playfool · Post by **playfool** » Sun Oct 10, 2004 7:24 pm

perseguidor wrote:
SoLC wrote:I wonder what RMS has against Fedora, those fellas are the most patent concerned, only allow free code in the distro - and they contribute everything back.
Good point... perhaps he doesn't like how Fedora is backed up by a large corporation

I would hardly call Redhat large, besides Ubuntu is backed by a rather large company as well - and RedHat are very good Open Source citizens, just look at their patent statement.

perseguidor · Post by **perseguidor** » Sun Oct 10, 2004 7:45 pm

SoLC wrote:I would hardly call Redhat large, besides Ubuntu is backed by a rather large company as well - and RedHat are very good Open Source citizens, just look at their patent statement.

Yes, you're right about that.
Then I'd say it's because Debian is the only distribution that uses GNU/Linux on its name and has a GNU/Hurd

But more seriously, has he spoken against Fedora anytime, or is it just that he didn't recommend it instead of Ubuntu?

Post by **pjp** » Sun Oct 10, 2004 7:53 pm

perseguidor wrote:That's right, but your original post had to do with a questioning of his authority, and that questioning was based on his similarities with Bill Gates

My original post:

pjp wrote:
CliveHarris wrote:I think to get him fully onside
I didn't know we were trying. RMS can keep is unreasonable ideals to himself, and the software he develops. Thanks.

Nothing to do with Gates. I was asking why Gentoo should be seeking RMS "approval." I don't recall reading an answer. Not that it matters.

scooterphish · Post by **scooterphish** » Sun Oct 10, 2004 8:01 pm

I have the answer for everything:
42.
All this silly bickering, name calling and strutting - and you guys are saying RMS is a zealot?!?

perseguidor · Post by **perseguidor** » Sun Oct 10, 2004 8:14 pm

pjp wrote:
pjp wrote:I didn't know we were trying. RMS can keep is unreasonable ideals to himself, and the software he develops. Thanks.
Nothing to do with Gates. I was asking why Gentoo should be seeking RMS "approval." I don't recall reading an answer. Not that it matters.

Yes, I wasn't referring to that post of yours, but the one in which you gave that similarity as a reason for not minding his opinion

I don't think Gentoo should blindly go after Stallman's blessing either. But his opinion is at least relevant, as we aren't using BSD, and most of the time the community is better off with him as an ally and not a foe, even when those 'categories' are all in his mind, and perhaps in yours (joke)

No angry FSF mob is breaking into your source archives to open them without your agreement, at least not anytime soon

And, in my humble opinion, I don't see any problem with people running Gentoo in Richard Stallman's way, that is: GPL-only Gentoo. And if portage can make that even easier for the people interested, without stomping into other user's rights... That would please many Gentoo users, and not only Stallman. That's what matters, doesn't it?

(If I am wrong or everybody thinks I should just shut up and let it go then say it and I'll be gone no problem whatsoever

)

perseguidor · Post by **perseguidor** » Sun Oct 10, 2004 8:19 pm

scooterphish wrote:I have the answer for everything:
42.
All this silly bickering, name calling and strutting - and you guys are saying RMS is a zealot?!?

But you know, we've got to make sure nobody tries to claim a patent that holds 42 hostage to this capitalist system... ARRRGHHH!.

/me starts to drool and collapses

moocha · Post by **moocha** » Sun Oct 10, 2004 8:51 pm

perseguidor wrote:I partially agree, moocha; I didn't meant to get all Machiavelian on you . I wasn't trying to directly imply that their ends justify whatever means they make use of, but that the difference in their means is not as relevant as the difference in their ends

Nod, I know

I have some rather strong feelings on the issue there, however - in my world (*snicker*) the means usually are the end, which is why I reacted that way

SebastianJ · Post by **SebastianJ** » Sun Oct 10, 2004 9:29 pm

moocha wrote: I personally maintain that the ends never justify the means. And I do mean never, ever, under no circumstances.

Ok, so you wouldn't sacrifice a mouse to save a close one?
And either you do not eat meat or you think that it's ok to treat animals badly or you only eat meat you can be sure is ok, assuming you accept the killing of them.
And how about coffee, I guess you only drink coffe produced in fair conditions?

And then I'm even mostly speaking of cases where I think you shouldn't let the end justify your means.

Ofcourse you have to compare wich is best case-to-case. If someone had the chance to change history back in 1914 by killing a certain Adolf, I'd say that would be ok, even though I'm not pro murder, or even pro death penalties.

moocha · Post by **moocha** » Sun Oct 10, 2004 10:07 pm

SebastianJ wrote:
moocha wrote: I personally maintain that the ends never justify the means. And I do mean never, ever, under no circumstances.
Ok, so you wouldn't sacrifice a mouse to save a close one?
And either you do not eat meat or you think that it's ok to treat animals badly or you only eat meat you can be sure is ok, assuming you accept the killing of them.
And how about coffee, I guess you only drink coffe produced in fair conditions?

And then I'm even mostly speaking of cases where I think you shouldn't let the end justify your means.

Ofcourse you have to compare wich is best case-to-case. If someone had the chance to change history back in 1914 by killing a certain Adolf, I'd say that would be ok, even though I'm not pro murder, or even pro death penalties.

Either you have no idea what you're talking about, or you haven't considered the nature of ethics and morality.

SebastianJ · Post by **SebastianJ** » Thu Oct 21, 2004 5:17 am

moocha wrote:Either you have no idea what you're talking about, or you haven't considered the nature of ethics and morality.

I thought I knew what I were talking about. But i don't get you comment at all , so I guess you meant omething different than I thought.

Care to explain?

Stormy Eyes · Post by **Stormy Eyes** » Thu Oct 21, 2004 2:01 pm

scooterphish wrote:I have the answer for everything:
42.

I think that 69 is a better answer.

pilla · Post by **pilla** » Thu Oct 21, 2004 3:27 pm

Stormy Eyes wrote:
scooterphish wrote:I have the answer for everything:
42.
I think that 69 is a better answer.

It would be interesting to see you telling this to RMS. No, it would be disgusting

shash · Post by **shash** » Thu Oct 21, 2004 4:25 pm

RMS expressed his opinion on Gentoo - while not totally for, he wasn't against either. That's what I gathered from what OP said.

That's his opinion, not yours! Unless there's a reason to worry about it, why bother? I for one am glad that he's at least partly supportive of my favourite distro. The more people who are, the better, IMO!

He's developed a whole lot of things - stuff without which we couldn't run most of our systems. And he was instrumental in quite a bit of what we're using now. Appreciate him for that, even if you don't agree with all his politics. That's my opinion.

benny1967 · Post by **benny1967** » Sun Jan 09, 2005 3:08 pm

perseguidor wrote:I don't think Gentoo should blindly go after Stallman's blessing either. But his opinion is at least relevant (...)

And, in my humble opinion, I don't see any problem with people running Gentoo in Richard Stallman's way, that is: GPL-only Gentoo. And if portage can make that even easier for the people interested, without stomping into other user's rights... That would please many Gentoo users, and not only Stallman. That's what matters, doesn't it?

Agreed. For my part, I changed from Windows to GNU/Linux not because I thought it was technically superior or more user friendly or because it's cheaper. I changed because I'm really fascinated by the idea of 'Free Software' and wanted to be part of it. I then - after a 1-week-trial of SuSe - chose Gentoo because I felt this was the distro that offered choice and the possibility of configuration at the highest, still user-friendly level.

The only thing now is that with all the software installed (more often than not without my explicit choice as a dependeny), it's hard to keep track of the licenses used; so hard that, in fact, I gave up on it and *hope* that probably at least most of my system is really Free Software.

I would love to have some mechanism that at least warns me if portage needs to install non-free software; it could also be a simple USE-flag that allows GPL-compatible licenses only.
It wouldn't hurt anybody.

Syntaxis · Post by **Syntaxis** » Sun Jan 09, 2005 3:22 pm

benny1967 wrote:I would love to have some mechanism that at least warns me if portage needs to install non-free software

See GLEP 23 -- Portage handling of ACCEPT_LICENSE.

titan100 · Post by **titan100** » Tue Jan 11, 2005 12:39 am

miqorz wrote:If I ever met RMS, he'd kick my ass for using FreeBSD, lol.

Actually, no, was just at a lecture he was having here in iceland, and he said the only problem he had with the BSD licenses where that they don't but any terms on the user ( that is you have to share the source, it's just general do what you want licenses, afaik).

ejg · Post by **ejg** » Tue Jan 11, 2005 8:29 pm

playfool wrote: ... RedHat are very good Open Source citizens, just look at their patent statement.

Stallman is not an Open Source advocate, and the GNU/free software foundation ( www.gnu.org - www.fsf.org ) principles in many ways disagree with the Open Source movement ( www.opensource.org ).

A good Open Source citizen can use hundreds of non-free applications (KDE, mozilla etc...) and fedora installs a bunch of those by default.
Debian offers free and non-free repositories so "the fanatics" can choose to install free software exclusively.

Q-collective · Post by **Q-collective** » Tue Jan 11, 2005 10:11 pm

playfool wrote:
perseguidor wrote:
SoLC wrote:I wonder what RMS has against Fedora, those fellas are the most patent concerned, only allow free code in the distro - and they contribute everything back.
Good point... perhaps he doesn't like how Fedora is backed up by a large corporation
I would hardly call Redhat large, besides Ubuntu is backed by a rather large company as well - and RedHat are very good Open Source citizens, just look at their patent statement.

Since when is Debian a company?

Syntaxis · Post by **Syntaxis** » Tue Jan 11, 2005 10:48 pm

Q-collective wrote:
playfool wrote:I would hardly call Redhat large, besides Ubuntu is backed by a rather large company as well
Since when is Debian a company?

I think he was actually referring to Canonical Ltd.

iTux · Post by **iTux** » Tue Jan 11, 2005 11:00 pm

Hi,

Just to point out that there is a good reason why you want to be able to have only approved licences... redistribution...

Ex: You cannot redistribute the Flash plugin. So you cannot build a Gentoo CD for redistribution with the Flash plugin.

Debian has several branch of software: main, notfree, contrib (free packages that depends on notfree), crypto (crypto that cannot be exported), ...
that solves these issues.

Gentoo installed libdvdcss (which might be illegal in some countries) as a dep. Now this has been fixed I think.

Gentoo once had erotic WindowMaker theme (yes, it was done by mistake but the dev should check themes and ask other developers if can be added or not). This again might be illegal in some countries.

I'm a Debian ex-user, and yes, I found it really annoying this split of free vs non-free, patches to software with non-free stuff etc., but there are reasons why you want some control of licence and software that gets installed.

iTux

Syntaxis · Post by **Syntaxis** » Tue Jan 11, 2005 11:20 pm

iTux wrote:Debian has several branch of software: main, notfree

That's "Non-Free".

contrib (free packages that depends on notfree)

Clarification: contrib contains packages that depend on non-free software in the general sense - it might not have been packaged in Non-Free (e.g. emulators requiring non-free roms that Debian can't legally distribute at all).

crypto (crypto that cannot be exported)

This section was called "Non-US", and is now obsolete. Debian's legal counsel has ruled that cryptographic software can now go into main following the US government's loosening of the export restrictions (said counsel's legal advice is publically available here). Non-US might possibly find a use once again, e.g. for housing software that's encumbered by patents in the US but not in the EU (see e.g. this post on the debian-cd mailing list) but that will come post-Sarge if at all.