
Please, no GitHub (2015) - e19293001
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/discuss-gnustep/2015-12/msg00168.html
======
quadrangle
Some of the comments here help remind me to shut up whenever I find myself
thinking dismissive thoughts about a caricature of someone's views when I
don't really have insights into what they think. It's far too easy to get a
vague impression from a few tidbits, hearsay, and groupthink. It's worth
practicing saying "I don't know" a lot more.

It's crazy how much people are willing to attack others for holding supposed
views without bothering to actually verify the view being held.

The vast, vast majority of criticism of Richard Stallman comes from people
mischaracterizing his views. It's as though grappling with his actual
arguments is just too much of a threat or something. More likely, it's just
intellectual sloppiness — posting crap on some online forum without bothering
to care about being reasonable.

~~~
JdeBP
Enjoy
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17093957](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17093957)
and
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17094036](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17094036)
. (-:

~~~
quadrangle
Well, those actually seem totally different from what I'm getting at. I think
people who understand Richard can still have valid arguments about his
positives and negatives as a leader etc.

I can't tell quickly skimming those threads (even their context) whether these
are people with real understanding bringing up particular reasonable
complaints in just absurdly hyperbolic fashion or whether they are ignorant
people with invalid criticisms. Either way, the comments aren't of the simple
style where they just say that RMS thinks X and are factually wrong.

------
Maro
The reasons RMS has for not liking Github have nothing to do with the recent
MS acquisition.

If you read into the thread, it's quite non-sensical, RMS eg. says Github is
evil because the license picker doesn't push his license strong enough, with
just the wording he'd be happy with: "You've put your finger on the problem.
The site leads people not to specify explicitly whether it is [GPLv3] "only"
or "or-later"."

I read into thread about 10 deep but I had to stop, my blood was starting to
boil from the nonsense.

~~~
djsumdog
I think RMS can be about as crazy as David Moore, yet I can see the method in
the madness.

So I'm in my mid-30s and I still really believe in the GNU GPL. I even license
my own stuff as GPLv3 (except for some libraries I released under Apache).

I still really believe in the GPL and that model of OSS. I feel like I'm in
the minority; that people my age and younger who give a shit about things like
this, prefer BSD/MIT/Apache style licenses.

~~~
greyman
> I feel like I'm in the minority; that people my age and younger who give a
> shit about things like this, prefer BSD/MIT/Apache style licenses.

I am of older age but I too prefer MIT over GPL. The logic is like this: time
is precious and if I devote it to developing an open-source library, I want it
to be used by as many people as possible. I see no reason whatsoever why I
would exclude closed-source software from adopting it.

~~~
quadrangle
You may not care enough, but at least you could _see_ a reason: to assure that
those who use your work respect the freedom of _their_ users.

You could even disagree with prioritizing this. But it's not like there's no
reason to be seen.

There are cases where someone wants to build something with your work, period.
And if you require that it stay free software, it will be free for the end-
users where it wouldn't be otherwise.

~~~
greyman
But I don't recognize that definition of "freedom of their users". It's an
artificial construct made by RMS. There are various reasons why some people or
companies don't open their source code. That choice should be respected. I
also write a lot of closed source, because it was decided the source should be
closed.

~~~
quadrangle
If you want to _disagree_ with the value, that's one thing. Not being able to
_recognize_ it is an intellectual failing (literally re- _cognize_ , i.e.
understand a concept, whether or not you think it's valid or important).

Let me help you out: if I have a computer and there exists software that I
could privately run for my own purposes and the computer is set up to not
allow me to run that software I want to run, then I am lacking some freedom to
use my own computer fully. Or say I want to copy some software from one
computer to another but someone has legally or technically put barriers to my
ability to do that. These are not an artificial constructs, they are as plain
as any concept of freedom can be.

------
AlexandrB
RMS has an annoying habit of being quite unreasonable and also, in retrospect,
absolutely right.

~~~
djsumdog
He doesn't ride Amtrak because they don't take cash (you can be tracked via
credit card payments).

I really respect RMS, but my purchasing decisions kinda stop at not shopping
at Wal-Mart since 2009 and Amazon a few years later. I also realize my choices
are symbolic and those companies will keep doing what they do no matter what.
I still shop at Whole-Foods..

I feel like you need to find the balance between Stallman idealism and the
reality that we live in a post-Edward Bernayes world.

I remember our sun will burn out one day and take a shot of nihilism before
bed, to help forget so I can bike to work the next day.

~~~
roadbeats
He would feel home in Germany then. Most people prefer cash here for same
reason.

~~~
gmueckl
This is mostly because payment systems in Germany are not there yet.
Supermarkets often still require a minimum amount before they accept bank
cards. There are tons of shops which don't accept credit cards at all. Also,
often payment with cash turns out to be executed faster than going through the
motions with a card (the waiting times between steps are unusually long).

~~~
DocTomoe
Payment systems also are unpopular because, you know, Germany had not one, but
two highly snooping dictatorships in the last century and knows where data
collection leads to - straight to the concentration camp/the gulag.

Unfortunately, credit cards are on the rise here.

------
mi100hael
On the same topic: [https://bogomips.org/unicorn-
public/20140801213202.GA2729%40...](https://bogomips.org/unicorn-
public/20140801213202.GA2729%40dcvr.yhbt.net/)

    
    
        > Current state makes it very hard to mange/search/fork/open-issues etc
        > especially for newcomers,
        > please move the project to github so we can have nice disussions
        > forks/prs etc goodness.
        
        No.  Never.  Github is proprietary communications tool which requires
        users to accept a terms of service and login.  That gives power and
        influence to a single entity (and a for-profit organization at that).
        
        Contributing to unicorn is *socially* as easy as contributing to git or
        the Linux kernel.  There is no need to signup for anything, no need to
        ever touch a bloated web browser.
        
        The reason I contribute to Free Software is because I am against any
        sort of lock-in or proprietary features.  It absolutely sickens me to
        encounter users who seem to be incapable of using git without a
        proprietary communications tool.

------
djsumdog
I feel like what I liked about open source, back in the 90s when I was in high
school, was the concept and ideals around the GPL. Linux was my primary OS all
through University. I wrote this about OSS a while back:

[https://penguindreams.org/blog/the-philosophy-of-open-
source...](https://penguindreams.org/blog/the-philosophy-of-open-source-in-
community-and-enterprise-software/)

I've worked for an "open source" shop that made no differentiation on licenses
(GPL vs BSDL). They did a lot of consulting/contracting and although they did
release OSS code, a lot of times it was for a project that died off or was
deprecated. Meanwhile, Apple has actively been trying to remove GPL code from
their OS.

I know Stallman does agree with support license based companies liked Redhat,
but what are his opinions on Commercial vs Enterprise setups like Gitlab?
(Even with Gitlab, the Enterprise version is open source; you just can't
legally run it without a license ... which is an interesting model for sure).

~~~
Tijdreiziger
GitLab Enterprise is _not_ open source.
[https://about.gitlab.com/installation/ce-or-
ee/](https://about.gitlab.com/installation/ce-or-ee/)

~~~
quadrangle
True, but that's because the comment you are replying to is being erroneous
and sloppy with the term "open source". GitLab EE _is_ source-available while
not meeting the full "open source" definition.

~~~
Tijdreiziger
After Googling some more I see now that GitLab's source is indeed publically
viewable [0] (I was under the impression that it's not).

[0] [https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-
org/gitlab-ee)

------
johnchristopher
The interesting tidbits are here [https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/discuss-
gnustep/2015-12/m...](https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/discuss-
gnustep/2015-12/msg00182.html)

Savannah is some kind of hosting platform for GNU projects.

~~~
felipelemos
This answer from Luboš Doležel it's right in the point IMHO:
[https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/discuss-
gnustep/2015-12/m...](https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/discuss-
gnustep/2015-12/msg00187.html)

"Your vision of freedom is rather absolutistic, since forcing freedom upon
others goes against the very nature of freedom."

~~~
briandear
That is the money quote to be sure. The idea that his version of “freedom”
should be considered the only version of freedom is, perhaps paradoxically,
totalitarian. I honestly don’t care about thinking about license philosophy
every waking minute. When I use a Coke machines, I don’t care if that system
is proprietary: I just want my Coke. The Stalman approach would be to never
use a Coke machine — nor permit others to do so either because he hates
proprietary licenses. That’s great except that imposes a restriction on my
freedom to drink a Coke.

Would he eat at a restaurant that doesn’t provide detailed recipes of
everything he orders? If he had his way, there would be no restaurants unless
they all provided recipes, which means that “secret sauce” becomes not so
secret and thus commoditizes the hard work of those who developed it.

~~~
bonesss
> If he had his way, there would be no restaurants unless they all provided
> recipes

I'd suggest you read more of his work -- The Right To Read springs to mind --
as that's a misrepresentation of his ideology.

His fight is for the right to open the hood of your car and decide yourself if
you've got the right carburettor and maybe swap out a lug nut or two using
standard dimensions, conventions, and tools.

To match your example: he wouldn't eat at a restaurant that somehow made it
impossible to open up your burger and see if the onions are caramelised, and
required you only use McRestaurant brand utensils to eat the food. Do you own
the food? Is it yours? Are you _free_ to take parts out and add parts if you
want? Or do you not have "the right" to decide that the pickles look sketchy?

Recipes, in your analogy, would represent academic knowledge. I'm pretty sure
he's for sharing that, too, but the GPL has no requirements that people
understand how you're creating the tasty algorithms you're serving on those
floppy disks... That doesn't get commoditised, as such, but instead gains new
value propositions as the demand for it raises through developing an economic
ecosystem surrounding it.

That is to say: RedHat is _more_ valuable because I can "commoditise" their
drivers and then pay them money to scratch my itch, not less. Most businesses
are in the "make money" business elsewhere, not in the Linux business. Sharing
is profit.

------
lasermike026
I'm game. I'll have to figure out how to help.

RMS has strong principles. We need more of that.

------
roadbeats
Free software is a healthy diet. You’ll feel restricted but benefit from it in
the long term.

------
Justsignedup
Richard Stalman hates _anything_ that isn't GPL. His restrictions is very
dogmatic.

Don't get me wrong, I think he is important to create the far extreme end of
the open source movement so we can gauge ourselves. But his stuff is dogmatic
in nature _NOT_ logical in nature. He would rather software be crippled than
be useful but non-free. He wants everyone to magically develop on their spare
time for free with copyleft licenses. This is craaaaaaazy. People gotta eat.

With his model you fall into the musician trap. If you are a world-renown
musician you get people coming to your recitals and don't gotta worry about
anything else. If you are not, nobody attends and thus you work as a teacher
or waiter.

There are some open-source developers who make a full living on donations. But
they are few and far between.

~~~
TheDong
> But his stuff is dogmatic in nature _NOT_ logical in nature. He would rather
> software be crippled than be useful but non-free

His position is self-consistent and logical. He actually is okay with
exceptions (such as using closed-source pacemakers if no open source ones
exist), but those exceptions need a _STRONG_ justification because they are
depriving people of their rights.

If you believe that proprietary software is a violation of the user's rights,
it's perfectly consistent to be so strongly opposed to it.

> He wants everyone to magically develop on their spare time for free with
> copyleft licenses

This is not true. He has no issues with companies like Red Hat (who primarily
make money off of GPLd software) nor with individual developers selling their
GPL licensed software.

> With his model you fall into the musician trap

The fact that companies like Red Hat exist counters that point I think. I
don't think your prediction adequately captures the market forces and
profession.

~~~
quadrangle
RMS is definitely _not_ okay with closed-source pacemakers. There's no
exception there for the _developers_. In fact, that's a case (because of
hardware) that using free software wouldn't even destroy the current business
model.

Richard is okay with _users_ of pacemakers making exception in their own
avoidance of non-free software. But he's as critical as ever about the
software developers making the thing non-free.

------
stevebmark
Please, GOD, no mailing lists. The irony of Stallman's irrelevant comment is
multiplied by the use of a mailing list.

