Comment by SwellJoe | Hacker News Reader

Comment by SwellJoe | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

No one is saying you must do anything. No one is demanding you to release your software under an open or free software license.

I'm simply saying I would like for a culture of learning and sharing to remain strong and vibrant going forward. You're making this into an ideological flame war, without reason. I haven't demanded anything of you or the software you create. I have suggested that a vibrant and thriving open source or free software community is a good thing.

As I mentioned in my first comment, I'm not speaking specifically of the GPL. I happen to like the license, but if you don't, that's fine. I have, nowhere in this conversation, suggested that only the GPL allows the kind of freedom I'm speaking of.

The freedom I am speaking of is about building a culture of being able to look at, learn from, modify, and contribute to, the software I (and others) use. And, nowhere have I suggested that only the GPL makes that possible; though I do think RMS and the FSF (and, yes, the GPL) deserve some credit for building the culture we currently enjoy.

When someone calls rape immoral, does he want to say that rape is a matter of personal preferences, or does he want to say that there should be a law against rape, and every violation should be punished?

When Stallman calls "non-free" software immoral, does he want to say that it's a matter of personal preferences, or does he want to say that there should be a law against publishing non-free software, and violations should be punished?

I consider killing pigs and cows for food, when there are good alternative sources of food available that require no cruelty, immoral. But, I do not seek to impose my morality on others by force of law.

He has, to my knowledge, never suggested there should be a law against producing non-free software. I have certainly never made such a suggestion in this thread.

Then, you're misunderstanding the word "immoral". To quote Steven Pinker from "The blank slate" (p.269):

"People feel that that moral rules are universal. Injunctions against murder and rape, for example, are not matters of taste or fashion but have a trancendent and universal warrent. People feel that other who commit immoral acts ought to be punished: not only is it right to inflict harm on people who have commmited a immoral infraction, it is wrong not to, that is, to "let them get away with it,"...

You have never suggested a law, but that's what the Free Software movement is about: In Stallman's mind -- and to those who understand him - , publishing non-free software is not just a matter of taste or fashion -- it's immoral and wrong; just like murder, rape, and stealing.

It must be punished.

That's ridiculous. You can't just change the meaning of words to suit your opinion!

From the dictionary (I would specifically point you to #3, in case you're feeling too lazy to read all of them):

mor·al [mawr-uhl, mor-] –adjective 1. of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes. 2. expressing or conveying truths or counsel as to right conduct, as a speaker or a literary work; moralizing: a moral novel. 3. founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom: moral obligations. 4. capable of conforming to the rules of right conduct: a moral being. 5. conforming to the rules of right conduct ( opposed to immoral): a moral man. 6. virtuous in sexual matters; chaste. 7. of, pertaining to, or acting on the mind, feelings, will, or character: moral support. 8. resting upon convincing grounds of probability; virtual: a moral certainty. –noun 9. the moral teaching or practical lesson contained in a fable, tale, experience, etc. 10. the embodiment or type of something. 11. morals, principles or habits with respect to right or wrong conduct.

You've clearly got an ax to grind here, but it's not with anything I've said in this conversation. You've thunk up some people out there trying to force you to work in software slave labor camps producing free software all the live long day. I have no idea where you got these ideas from, but it's not from anything I've said, and it's not from the FSF website or the GPL license and relevant documentation.

I didn't change its meaning; I just pointed out what people feel. Yes, that stuff is not the FSF site, just like tax raises are not mentioned during election.

But Stallman is clear enought during interviews (emphasis by me):

* “The free software movement aims for a social change: to make all software free..." - http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/compromise.html

* “Non-free software tramples your freedom. […] It's unethical and it should not exist.” -- http://multinationalmonitor.org/mm2004/07012004/july-aug04in...

* Interviewer "If there was a button that you could push and force all companies to free their software, would you press it?" Stallman: […] But yes, I think all published software should be free software." - http://www.gnu.org/events/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.txt

* Interviewer: "Would you accept a federal law in the United States to enforce the distribution of source code with every type of software?" Stallman: "I am not calling for such a law as of now, but I think that would be a valid consumer protection measure[…]" - http://www.linuxdevcenter.com/pub/a/linux/2004/12/22/rms_int...

I really don't want this to be a flame war. I want a culture or sharing and learning, too. I think that culture and community are by far the most important. Since we've at a point where we largely agree, I'll take it as a good point to stop.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com