
Eric Raymond: Why I think RMS is a fanatic, and why that matters - bhughes
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4386
======
cstross
We need people like RMS. He marks one side of the Overton Window framing the
debate on freedom and software.

(Overton window: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window> )

This doesn't mean he's _right_ but what he does is _necessary_. If he didn't
exist we'd need to invent him (or someone like him).

(Oh, and he is indeed a fanatic, but of the pacifist variety -- not the kind
who's interested in killing people to enforce his views -- and therefore worth
debating with.)

~~~
cwp
No.

The difference between RMS and ESR is one of kind, not one of degree. Both the
free software movement and the open source movement believe that open system
are good, and the more open they are the better they are. The difference is in
their answer to the question of "why?"

RMS and his adherents believe in inalienable human right to tinker, and
consider limitations to that right, such as closed source technology, to
morally offensive. ESR and his followers believe that open technology is
_better_ technology and that the benefits of technology are more fully
realized when it's possible to tinker with it. RMS is concerned with morality,
ESR with practicality.

The key thing here is that there's no spectrum with the RMS on one end, Steve
Jobs on the other end and ESR somewhere in the middle. The open source
movement is just as ardent, just as committed and just as "extreme" as the
free software movement, but more successful.

Now perhaps you mean that the FSF serves an important function, in that their
fanaticism makes the open source movement look more reasonable and thus more
acceptable to the mainstream. But I think the very fact that actual positions
held by free software and open source advocates are so similar make it hard
for mainstream observers to appreciate the distinction.

So no, we don't need people like RMS.

[edited the last line for clearer rhetoric]

~~~
raganwald
_The difference between RMS and ESR is one of kind, not one of degree_

Yes.

 _RMS is concerned with morality, ESR with practicality._

Also yes, for some definition of “practicality.”

 _The open source movement is just as ardent, just as committed and just as
"extreme" as the free software movement, but more successful._

I don’t know how to measure commitment, but I agree that the open source
movement is more successful in the sense that it is more popular.

But what else should we expect? If you take two groups with similar ideas, but
one thinks of moral arguments as a way to achieve practical goals, while the
other thinks that practical arguments are a way to achieve moral goals, you
should almost always expect to see the “practical” group be more successful
than the moral group.

I see this in school, where students who study how to pass tests get higher
marks than students who study the material to learn. I see this in business. I
see this in politics. Why would we expect to see anything else in software?

 _no, we don't need RMS_

I think that’s a fine statement to make if you qualify who “we” are. If you
mean people concerned with practical objectives, you may be right. I caution
against rhetoric that might be mistaken for suggesting that your point of view
encompasses everyone reading your arguments.

~~~
cwp
_I think that’s a fine statement to make if you qualify who “we” are. If you
mean people concerned with practical objectives, you may be right. I caution
against rhetoric that might be mistaken for suggesting that your point of view
encompasses everyone reading your arguments._

Fair point. That line was actually meant as a direct response to cstross's "We
need people like RMS," but I botched the parallel construction. The "we" there
should be the same "we" that cstross was talking about.

 _one thinks of moral arguments as a way to achieve practical goals, while the
other thinks that practical arguments are a way to achieve moral goals_

That's an interesting way to think about it, but for me at least, neither of
those characterizations is accurate. I think practical arguments are a way to
achieve practical goals. I oppose the philosophy of the FSF, because AFAICT,
they're making moral arguments to achieve moral goals. You seem to consider
morality and practicality to be two sides of the same coin, where I see them
as quite separate.

What I dislike about the RMS position is that it seems to consider tinkering,
and perhaps geek culture in general, as inherently good and goals in their own
right. I take a more utilitarian view: tinkering is good insofar we benefit
from the results. (That "we" is very broad by they way. Users of technology
and humanity in general.)

[turns out I can still edit the gp, so I fixed that line]

~~~
icebraining
_What I dislike about the RMS position is that it seems to consider tinkering,
and perhaps geek culture in general, as inherently good and goals in their own
right. I take a more utilitarian view: tinkering is good insofar we benefit
from the results._

I disagree; his position, as I perceive it, is that _having the right to_
tinker is inherently good, not so much tinkering itself. Much like many of us
consider Free Speech to be inherently good, even if we find some speech
abominable.

And the advantages of Free Software aren't limited to tinkering, of course.

~~~
cwp
Sure. The right to tinker is required for actual tinkering, and a right that's
never exercised is pointless. Regardless, I don't consider the right to tinker
an end in its self. The pleasure of tinkering is utterly unimportant compared
with the good that a tinkerers work can bring into the world.

As for freedom of speech, I think the analogy is flawed. The technology
equivalent of speech is invention, and the freedom to invent doesn't require
anything like the GPL. The freedom to tinker is more like the freedom to
copyedit somebody else's work. And hey, I'm for it! Remix culture is great
stuff. But it's not in the same league as freedom of speech.

When it comes right down to it, though, I don't consider freedom of speech an
end in its self either. The value of free speech is the sort of society it
produces, not the speech its self. I favour limits to speech when the effect
of that speech is _not_ a net good to society. Now, those situations are few
and far between, but they do exist. Yelling "fire" and all that; our legal
system has a long and nuanced tradition of weighing the issue in various
situations.

The point is that dogma and fanaticism are counterproductive, whatever your
goals are. The FSF is certainly not alone in this.

~~~
raganwald
_The value of free speech is the sort of society it produces, not the speech
its self._

With great respect, I urge you to think this kind of thing through very, very
carefully. Consider freedom in the general sense, such as freedom to vote.
Many post-colonial countries have freer citizens but worse economies. If
freedom is useful only inasmuch as it is a means to some other practical end,
we could say that these countries would be better off with colonial masters
running them.

America threw off colonialism and prospered, but it is the exception. Freedom
often has costs, ask anyone who has chosen to start a company instead of
taking a job with BigCo. Some people, myself included, consider freedom a
worthwhile thing whether it makes us rich or healthy or happy or not.

~~~
cwp
I thank you for the respect you show when you disagree. I hope I can do the
same. I do indeed think about this kind of thing often and as carefully as I
can.

The thing is, freedom in the general sense _does_ produce happiness. If you
doubt that, consider the contrary case, how we suffer when our freedom is
taken away. In its most general sense, freedom is our ability to pursue
happiness and avoid suffering. Of _course_ our well being requires it. Freedom
is good, in spite of its costs, _because_ it makes us happy. If it didn't, why
would we risk our lives and livelihoods to obtain it?

Nevertheless, I think it's important, when making moral judgements, to focus
on happiness and wellbeing rather than a proxy like freedom. In a world of
maximum freedom, where everyone is completely unfettered, we actually find
ourselves less happy. We immediately form groups and establish social norms.
We make laws. We constrain freedom in order to maximize wellbeing.

The suffering that I experience at the loss of my freedom to take what I want
from those around me is exceeded by the security I feel knowing that the same
protection is afforded to me. So yes, freedom is good, but so is security. So
is prosperity — taxation robs me of my freedom to spend my income as I see
fit, but the benefit I receive more than makes up for it. The only way I can
see to measure the trade-offs between freedom, security, prosperity, health,
etc is to value them for the wellbeing they bring to us, rather than try to
assign value to them directly.

------
jgrahamc
"The problem with it is the same problem with messianic religions in general;
for people who are not flipped into true-believer mode by any given one, it
will come off as at best creepy and insular, at worst nutty and potentially
dangerous (and this remains true even for people attached to a different
messianic religion)."

I fit into neither of the caricatures of either a 'true believer' or someone
scared of RMS. I see him as someone who truly believes in something and has
stood by it no matter what. His 'fanatical' language of evil etc. is because
he truly believes those things to be evil. I've always used the GPL for
licensing my open source code specifically because it ensures that it stays
open and that improvements are given back. On one occasion I've been persuaded
to use another license so that $CORP could use the code
(<http://gmsl.sf.net/>) internally and I see that the non-fanatical position
helped $CORP but I'm not sure it helped the greater cause of open source.

~~~
Karunamon
>His 'fanatical' language of evil etc. is because he truly believes those
things to be evil.

Any fanatic truly believes themselves to be right.

That said, I'm a free software advocate. I see where the guy is coming from. I
agree on most points. The one that I absolutely cannot get behind is that not
releasing the source is evil.

~~~
marquis
>not releasing the source is evil

I believe it's a cultural necessity given how we make money as software
developers. Hardware developers have a buffer in terms of actual production,
which requires significant investment. You can reverse engineer any hardware
you have in your hands but it's unlikely given 2012 technology that you can
mass-produce it and steal revenue from the copied source (patents
notwithstanding). I can't imagine a global business environment environment in
which open source software is the norm, but I would really to hear some
theories - can you imagine how wonderful it would be to be able to explore the
source code of say, SpaceX?

~~~
einhverfr
Some areas where open source software is the norm:

1) Web servers

2) compilers for UNIX and embedded application development

3) ISP infrastructure

I am sure there are plenty of others. My business is trying to bring LedgerSMB
to this area regarding mid-range accounting and ERP.

Open source can be effectively monatized in more ways than proprietary
software. As LedgerSMB 1.4 comes along we'll be shifting from consulting
company to start-up offering subscription services to do things that open
source economics doesn't pay for very well. The software will still be open
source but it will be monatized through subscriptions (think RHEL) which come
with value added components updated in a timely manner. However the fact that
it is open source also allows for me to off-set some of the development costs
via consulting services (those aren't going away, but they are being de-
emphasized a bit).

No I don't mind sharing the plans here. There are reasons why the revenue for
these solutions, even if people know what the problems and solutions are,
cannot be stolen from me. Open source is just a different game and you have to
figure out what the rules are.

For the record the major areas we are going to focus on will be payroll and
electronic submission to government agencies. These areas are frequently
updated and the issue is that you don';t want to be the first one to ask for
the feature and thus pay for everyone else's use. A subscription model lets us
spread the cost around. People could try to jump in but I have a head start
and a place of great privilege in the market. It would take a long time for
someone to be able to challenge me.

In open source the way you get to a point where you can monetize the user base
is by maximizing your downstream market (that's those who use your services
and your customers' services). The closer you are to the center, the larger
that base is. If anyone here says "oh that's a great idea" and tries to do
this in LedgerSMB, you'll be starting near the outside, while I have the
entire community as a potential user base. And if you go out and find lots of
new customers, those are _also_ potential customers for me. I win there too.

The real reason for proprietary software is that it is one way of spreading
around the cost of development. You have to do it differently in open source
software, but there are actually a larger number of ways of doing it than are
possible in the standard COTS world.

~~~
dpark
Not coincidentally, those are also areas where there's basically no longer any
profit to be made. No one makes money selling web servers or compilers for
Unix, because it's not possible to compete on price with "free".

The businesses that make money from open source typically do so by selling
something else on top. Google doesn't sell open source. They sell services.
Red Hat doesn't sell open source. They sell support to large businesses. ISPs
sell bandwidth. Etc.

~~~
dredmorbius
Too: proprietary solutions cannot (at a sustainable price point) compete with
the _quality_ of free.

As someone noted -- there's a development model which shares the load among
many eyes, and produces higher quality work as a result.

There are a few other mechanisms at work, but the upshot is that for utility,
and even a fair amount of specialized software, there's no longer a
marketplace for the software itself.

~~~
Karunamon
>Too: proprietary solutions cannot (at a sustainable price point) compete with
the quality of free.

That depends entirely on the community behind the free solution, and what
class of software it is. For instnance, I'm not aware of a FOS document
management system which would compete with, say, Paperport or DevonThink
(Windows and Mac systems, very proprietary).

~~~
dredmorbius
I didn't say in all cases. Specialized, very high-value, and vertical tools
particularly.

But generally the trend is that, starting with OS, development and management
tools, and commodity software, Free Software is taking the financial value out
of software sales.

For your example, OpenKM and LogicalDoc turn up for searches on "document
management open source", though I couldn't say how they compete on
functionality, scale, ease-of-use, stability, and/or management.

To shift spaces slightly: there's a pretty small market for proprietary Wiki
software. Atlassian and Microsoft Sharepoint would be two that I'm aware of,
though alternatives, especially MediaWiki, are very widely used (internal to
the CIA even).

What's becoming more common is a service model based on free wiki software.
Jimmy Wales has a startup based on offering MediaWiki pages, there's a similar
offering based on TWiki that I'm aware of. I'm sure there are others.
Similarly, blogging engines as-a-service. The software's free, but the service
offering drives revenue.

Could be a way into the docs management market as well.

------
kamaal
RMS is what he is because, what he is.

You can't change such people, you won't be able to. And they won't change, And
they must not change. If people like him, don't live like he does- Its
impossible to take on entities like Microsoft and Apple single handedly.

Although you can argue that ideas from Free software were there ahead and
during RMS's times. You can never debate that he gave it a sense of cause,
activism with passion and enthusiasm never seen before. This man, made Free
Software a purpose in his life. He never gives up, never compromises, his
passion and intensity never wanes. He just seems to find infinite energy to go
on and on.

Don't get me wrong. We are not just dealing Steve Jobs grade material here. He
is more than Steve Jobs. This guy wrote some of the most widely used programs
on earth today. And of supreme quality. He designed them, wrote them and
marketed them. He is also the author of the most widely used license in
software history. He is a prolific organizer, and executor.

He also holds strong views on political issues. Although he is often
aggressive. I have never heard him do cheap talk or bad mouth some one,
criticize, hate and bash them pointlessly without facts, or because of their
ethnic origin, faith, belief or way of life.

But I see ESR as a epitome of hyperbole, bad mouthing, hating people because
of their belief, faith and their way of life. Advocating violence. Yet his
contributions towards are hardly few. I don't know of the last time he made a
big contribution. And I don't even know if he has ever contributed something
signification. All I know is has a high Blog noise to work ratio. Has written
books based on some one else's work. And now feels qualified in the world to
take on anybody and comment on them. People like ESR generally don't get taken
seriously.

~~~
smsm42
So many fallacies in one post.

1\. You conflate RMS being supremely talented programmer with his political
strategy. ESR criticized the latter and never doubted - but actually
emphasized - the former.

2\. Anybody who actually read ESR article knows that RMS was never criticized
for his ethnic origin, faith, belief or way of life - only for his political
strategy and manner of achieving this goal.

3\. Advocating violence? Care to give any proof of that? This goes so far that
I actually checked the profile to see maybe this is just an anon trolling
going on here. Such accusation needs serious proof.

4\. Ad hominem attacks on ESR don't add anything to your argument as they do
not defend RMS in any way (even if ESR were nobody, his argument still could
be valid on merits) - and they are also completely false.

5\. One does not any special qualification to comment on anything. One needs
only to make sense and be able to build a solid argument. At which you seem to
be failing now, since your argument seems to sum up to "RMS is great, ESR is
nobody" and a bunch of factually incorrect statements. Such argument in no way
can be persuasive to defend RMS's political strategy and rhetoric which ESR is
criticizing.

~~~
kamaal
I never said ESR criticized RMS because of the reasons, I mentioned.

ESR is long know to write blog posts advocating US military campaigns on
Middle east(Remember so far no proof found about WMD's in Iraq). He also used
to write extreme hate blogs against Muslims and Islam in General, I used to
follow some of his posts then. But later gave up on reading it was full of too
much hate for nothing. I find it difficult to offer such people audience. Hate
is a dangerous thing to encourage, no matter whom its diverted towards.

He would advocate all out wars to 'defend his way of life', So you now want
several millions of people bombed, killed and a generation of people with a
broken national infrastructure and hope. All of this just because you like
hearing to Micheal Jackson and they don't?

ESR to me is nothing more than a guy who use to write articles on
controversial issues during pre blogging days. And seems to have made some
name encouraging/bashing/thrashing/bad mouthing people. Such bloggers are
worth dime a dozen today.

RMS on other hand has proven credentials as a hacker. Both in the MIT Lab and
later writing software like Emacs and other GNU utils. His political views are
more non violent and more left leaning, yet far better than that of ESR's.

<http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Eric_S._Raymond>

~~~
smsm42
"I never said ESR criticized RMS because of the reasons, I mentioned."

Then why you mentioned those things in comment which discusses ESR's critique
of RMS? Just because you had a random thought and had to express it before you
forget it, no matter the topic? And why you immediately added "But I see ESR
as a epitome of hyperbole, bad mouthing, hating people because of their
belief, faith and their way of life. Advocating violence"?

Looks like is it you that is badmouthing people because of their beliefs, not
ESR, and I also notice a lot of the same un-loving feeling in your responses
that you attribute to ESR. I will ignore the attempt to derail the discussion
and change topic to Iraq and Muslims, however, since it is completely offtopic
(and again, contains multiple false statements). I just will notice that
"advocating violence" in context of political discussion and political
critique and meaning by it supporting actions (however they may seem wrong to
you) of legitimate democratic government in totally unrelated case is
extremely disingenuous.

You proceed to declare utter baloney and try to assign this baloney as if ESR
ever said it, which also is obviously false and I wonder how you can expect
such cheap rhetorical trick to convince anybody.

I think everybody here knows how ESR has made his name, and it has absolutely
nothing to do with "bashing/thrashing/badmouthing people". Again, why you
expect this obviously false statement to sound convincing to the informed
audience is a mystery to me. However, (lack of) your personal respect to ESR
is not important, as points he makes do not become less valid because you
personally disrespect him.

The most sad part of your comment is however the last link. And the most sad
part of this link is that incoherent drivel by some anonymous internet trolls
which consists completely of "bashing, trashing and badmouthing", is presented
as "Rational Wiki". Sad and deeply ironic.

~~~
kamaal
I don't know who is trolling whom here.

But you find goodness in a man known for his extreme hate writings against
people of certain ethnic origins(Arabs), and people belonging to a particular
race and color(blacks). Or certain preference on a way of life(like marrying
people of the same gender). You consider this man good.

And now you call the people who point to this as trolls.

At this point my debate with you ends. Because I don't think we are on the
plane of thinking.

------
jiggy2011
I have a hunch that RMS will be of great interest to historians, probably more
so than Steve Jobs in the long run.

The overall GNU/Linux/OSS movement/project is the only thing I can think of
where a work of such magnitude has been carried out on a global scale and has
not been orchestrated by a single entity such as a government of corporation.

Something that has been tested on this scale and succeeded as well as it has
is likely to be spread to other areas of life. Once Stallman dies , he will be
remembered much more fondly than we think of him now and it would not surprise
me if he became the inspiration for some future ruler or political movement.

~~~
cromulent
Yes, I agree that history will treat RMS kindly. He's a curious creature. Jobs
was right for his time at the crucible of personal computing, but I think RMS
will be right for many times in the future, and his mark will be clearer and
longer lasting.

------
mindcrime
Mmm... generally speaking, I'm an ESR fan, but I think he's a bit wrong (and a
bit right here. What I mean is, yes, RMS almost certainly is a fanatic. I
doubt RMS himself would disagree with that characterization (although I don't
know him and have never asked him; so it's just a hunch). But, the question
is, is RMS _harmful_ to the F/OSS culture (to the extent that one can talk
about any sort of homogeneous "F/OSS culture")? On this point, I'm
unconvinced.

In fact, I'll argue that, whether despite his fanaticism or because of it, RMS
has been - and remains - a positive influence on the F/OSS world. No, his
position and his rantings aren't for _everyone_ but they are for _some_ and to
the _some_ who are deeply inspired by his actions, the "RMS as messianic
figure" thing is probably very valuable. And considering their are fanatics on
the "opposing team" (if you will), like certain people who refer to the GPL as
communist, I believe a certain measure of fanaticism is good, in terms of
counter-balancing the opposing fanaticism.

The mainstream of culture itself will likely always hang somewhere in the
middle. But one has to wonder where things would wind up without Stallman and
the FSF proselytizing so strenuously for Free Software.

~~~
jiggy2011
To be honest , most people don't even know who RMS is and that includes people
who work in IT (and many people who use Linux for a living).

------
cromulent
"You assist an evil system most effectively by obeying its orders and decrees.
An evil system never deserves such allegiance. Allegiance to it means
partaking of the evil. A good person will resist an evil system with his or
her whole soul." -Mahatma Gandhi

Copied and pasted from stallman.org. I understand the rationale of ESR and
many others, but RMS is trying to move the centrepoint of the discussion as
far as he can, and to do that he must "resist with his whole soul". Compromise
is for others.

~~~
Jach
A quote I like from Stallman himself more than any of Gandhi's: "They seem to
have learned the habit of cowering before authority even when not actually
threatened. How very nice for authority. I decided not to learn this
particular lesson."

------
luser001
I went ahead and donated to the FSF after reading this article instead of
venting here on HN. You lose, ESR. :)

<https://my.fsf.org/donate/>

------
gwern
I find it funny ESR thinks he or 'Open Source' have made much progress; I
would have thought the existence of patent trolls - things fanatics like RMS
have been warning about for literally decades and been mocked as fanatics for
just as long - would force even the most obtuse to acknowledge their
foresight. Guess not.

------
_delirium
An argument between RMS and ESR over who's the bigger fanatic is not likely to
produce very enlightening results...

~~~
zbuc
ESR doesn't strike me as particularly fanatical from what I know of him. Are
you thinking of something in particular?

~~~
pvarangot
Are you familiar with his views about Islam or Homosexuality? Those seem
pretty fanatical to me, they are completely biased and downright offensive and
illiterate. He equates homosexuality with paedophilia, denies HIV is the sole
cause of AIDS and believes in a conspiracy to hide the true causes, and calls
for the murder of religious leaders of the middle east equating them with
animals. I tried multiple times to discuss this theories with him, but he
called me a "marxist anti-american fag" (sic), a label that even if undisputed
gives him no logical arguments against any refutation of his bizarre theories
nor justifies his calls for action or even sometimes genocide.

For some time already his mind has been drifting in a sea of obscurantist
choosing of statistics and a convenient selection of right-winged american-
exceptionalist conspiracy theories.

I could link to his twisted essays, but although biased the entry in Rational
Wiki about him sums most of the hard facts, though I suggest you ignore their
opinion and go read the compiled cited writing of ESR.
<http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Eric_S._Raymond>

~~~
pjscott
I dislike seeing someone's name smeared in a vague way. A bit of googling
brought up the essay you mentioned regarding homosexuality, pederasty, and
pedophilia:

<http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=26>

(Vagueness, begone!)

~~~
luser001
The rationalwiki article linked above links to that article and several
others. So IMHO your charge of "name smeared in a vague way" is incorrect.

------
cageface
_I had long since concluded that the Free Software Foundation’s moralistic
rhetoric was serving us badly._

Which "us" is this exactly? ESR presumes too much.

~~~
hobin
Surprised? ESR has been doing this for years, even though he now only has a
very small group of devout followers who consider his ramblings significant.
It has been years since he could actually be said to speak for open source
hackers everywhere. (In fact, if you ask me and quite a lot of other people,
he never could.)

------
JamisonM
Eric Raymond's working definition of a fanatic is, "Fanaticism consists in
redoubling your effort when you have forgotten your aim".

RMS is to me the exact antithesis of this definition. He has always had a
complete focus on his end objective and everything he does is geared towards
it (and scraping out a meagre living so he can continue it). One could argue
that the path he has chosen to his objective is incorrect but to say that he
is now acting having lost sight of his objective is wrong.

RMS to me has always been very conscious of his ethical position and has been
pragmatic to the extent that being so does not put him in the position of
being a complete hypocrite. For example, his position of the use of the LGPL.
This has never seemed to be to be the behaviour of a fanatic of any variety.

I think offering the suggestion that religious language is detrimental to his
message is perfectly reasonable. I have always viewed RMS real audience as
hackers, and since the hacker culture is one of using religious language
tongue-in-cheek I think the language fits the audience.

------
guelo
The problem with the 'Open Source' movement is that it stopped the free
software revolution in its tracks by opening up a third way that relieved the
pressure that was building up on corporations by the growing mountain of GPL
code. That ultimately has allowed corporations to coopt the work of the
volunteer community and turn around and attack us with even more locked down
proprietary code such as the iPhone.

------
nextstep
This post repeats a very weak argument over and over: RMS uses messianic
language which alienates potential allies. Ok. But do you think strict
adherence to the principles of the FSF are good? This piece doesn't even
address the core issues of RMS's position, and just accuses him of phrasing
his point poorly.

~~~
ubernostrum
I sense that you did not read the essay.

The point is that two people can agree on a particular goal that needs to be
achieved, while disagreeing -- perhaps quite strongly -- on the means
appropriate and best suited to achieve that goal.

RMS' approach to a business which produces proprietary software is,
essentially, "Your business is evil, you are evil, and I will crusade to end
your evil."

ESR's approach is, essentially, "Your business could be so much more efficient
and productive. Let me show you how."

ESR is, much as it pains me to admit this, correct as to which approach is
more likely to achieve the stated goal of convincing businesses to stop
producing/using proprietary software.

~~~
Shamanmuni
OK, but you have to acknowledge that businessmen and engineers are not the
only people who could be interested in FOSS.

I work regularly with social scientists; they are really interested in Free
Software and don't care much about Open Source. You can talk about efficiency
and reduction of cost endlessly and to them it's just another "marketing
speech" but if you talk about ethics and the well-being of society at large
they are instantly hooked.

RMS is just a man, he can't be all things to all people. There are situations
in which his rhetoric is really effective, and others in which it isn't; as
simple as that. It's great to have Open Source to make an argument that
businessmen will pay attention to. However, criticising the "Free Software
guy" because he's not an "Open Source guy" is kind of pointless.

I think the diversity in points of view is a testament to the cultural
importance of FOSS, and we should celebrate that.

------
Paul_S
Aside from this being a good candidate for the dictionary definition of the
kettle and pot idiom the problem with RMS is that whilst I agree with him
wholeheartedly on almost all software issues I would never use him to convince
any of my non-tech friends of anything because I think they wouldn't be able
to get over his eccentricities. And some of these are just... unique. Which is
a pity because his ideas and essays are well thought out and interesting.

I don't agree with the complaint about bringing in moral arguments in what he
sees as a purely technical issue. Every human endeavour can be viewed from a
moral standpoint and it's a perfectly valid perspective and doesn't exclude
others.

------
trotsky
_The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists
in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the
unreasonable man._

George Bernard Shaw - Maxims for Revolutionists -
<http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/26107/pg26107.html>

In my opinion Eric argues against his point simply by making it.

------
meric
I found ESR's comment interesting: ">In setting this stance, we push the
Overton window further to our side, allowing pragmatists to be able to say,
“We’re not extremists, like Stallman” and gain more credibility.

This is actually reasonable. I’ve used Stallman this way myself – he more or
less begs for it. But I don’t think you’re answering the usual intent of the
claim “the moral viewpoint is essential”, which has nothing to do with
anything as cold-blooded as gaming the Overton window and everything to do
with deep-seated convictions in the speaker."

~~~
brlewis
I find that comment (and the comment he's replying to) more interesting than
anything in the post itself.

------
dtbx
I think that ESR should employ a more radical license for his programs: the
"do what the fuck you want to" public license.

If RMS want to dress like St Ignacious, do what the fuck you want.

If RMS wants to be the new Che Guevara, do what the fuck you want, man.

ESR is libertarian, and libertarianism is all about deploying that kind of
license in your personal life.

RMS is not a fanatic. He's passionate, and I like his passion and his cause.

I don't think that engineering pragmatism is politically neutral. Sure, you
can write a fine piece of software, but Who controls the software? For me,
that's the crucial question, and I think is a very pragmatic question, indeed.

------
swa14
esr has long become open source's Colonel Kurz. Being stuck somewhere in his
own little piece of the cyber jungle, together with those who adhere to his
peculiar view of life.

Some might know him from his work "the Cathedral and the Bazaar", or know him
as contributor to "Battle for Wesnoth". And some might even know him for his
contributions to GNU (yes, really! open up the documentation to various
utilities some time, and his name will be there). The problem with esr is
however, his fanaticism. Where rms speaks of software, he speaks of software
and its impact on society only. Whether this is done in the most effective way
is open to debate. To expound on the rest of his personal political ideas, he
uses his homepage. In general he makes a clear distinction between his general
political stance (which everyone has one), and his ideas on software (where he
can speak authoritatively).

esr's views are "all in". You are either part of "the tribe" and accept him as
your "silverback gorilla" alpha-male, or you're _wrong_. He's been using his
notoriety as a hacker to create visibility for his ideas on other aspects of
life, creating, imo, a position of false authority for himself.

You can agree or disagree with rms. But irrespective of the way he presents
his ideas on software, they stand on their own, they stand up to scrutiny, and
can be defended by and discussed in terms of logical arguments; meaning you
are free to agree or disagree with the body of ideas behind free sofware and
radically differ (from rms) in any other aspect of life.

Pitting esr's and rms's ideas on free sofware as "two sides of the same coin",
needs a coin in a very non-euclidian universe.

In short. esr's influence on opensource dwindled over the years, alienating
readers because of tying in his views on software with his strong political
beliefs. rms's influence on free software has remained strong, not because of
his persona (some might say, "in spite" of), but because they are sound and
selfcontaining, and don't require people to "buy into" ideas on other aspects
of life that are not strictly software related.

------
tptacek
"There is too much at stake for me to be diplomatically dishonest about this –
it did immense damage to the cause of openness, and I had to spend a good many
years remediating that damage."

Exactly what is at stake in Raymond's communication of his opinion about
Stallman? If the answer is "nothing", is it worth pointing out how flawed his
analysis is?

------
bane
Moralists and fanatics are principally concerned with issues of ideological
purity...often to the point of being willing to sacrifice tremendous parts of
society in pursuit of this purity -- even as their own slice of the pie gets
smaller and smaller and even when pursuit of the practical would move the
world towards their ideal much more effectively.

 _Every_ so often an event will happen where an ideological purist's rhetoric
is true, and this arms them for years of ideological advocacy and
warfare...while day-to-day practicalities are dismissed and pass them by.
Sure, one could spend 16 hours a day praying at the alter of a particular
path, but then there's no time to eat.

Interestingly, highly intelligent ideologues often (not always) follow an
interesting path of massive and early creativity and productivity, while
trailing off quickly into years of chasing imaginary rabbits down imaginary
holes -- when simply continuing to produce would have done a better job of
getting their point across.

RMS is like this. Early on he produced absolutely amazing stuff at an
astonishing rate -- pieces of software which are still being actively used and
developed decades later. Many developers would give their left arm to have
achieved this.

And then it suddenly stops. The creative outpouring and concrete contributions
to the material world suddenly end and he focuses his energies almost entirely
in ideological purity.

It's akin in some ways to Newton's deeper dive into Alchemy or Savonarola's
switch from medical school to religion.

Don't forget, Savonarola, despite his desire to pitch the Western world back
into the Dark Ages, also fought corruption and exploitation of the poor -- he
was right _some_ of the time.

The recent news of Stallman's laptop's theft makes me even sadder because of
his ideological purity, the chances of him finding a replacement, and getting
back to just making stuff are even further away.

~~~
nnethercote
"And then it suddenly stops. The creative outpouring and concrete
contributions to the material world suddenly end"

Here's a more prosaic possibility: he got old and/or moved into management.

~~~
dannyobrien
He also developed (had?) RSI. See
<http://oreilly.com/openbook/freedom/ch09.html#15416>

------
Spooky23
We live in a free society, and Stallman is free to have an opinion, and to
interpret things strictly or loosely.

He is a fanatic or an extremist? Absolutely. But he continues to attract
interest, and his contributions to society are real and significant.

Society needs fanatics. We need someone to question that moral righteousness
of things like copyright, or to set a boundary for the meaning of "open
source". If he's personally difficult for Mr. Raymond to deal with, so what?
How would the world improve if everyone sat around getting along with each
other?

Raymond's post is self-serving, and more about reminding us about how
important he is while criticizing someone else.

------
Tichy
I find it often quite sad if people are called upon to change their behavior
for public relations reasons. In many cases I feel people are asked to
undermine their integrity.

I say screw public relations, stand up for what you believe is right! If free
software needs a more agreeable head figure, why don't they hire Paris Hilton
or whomever?

------
kds
It was RMS in the beginning - he built the foundations: the software (GCC, the
GNU-project, Emacs), the philosophy and the values (his essays and
interviews), the organisation (FSF), the copyleft legal rights (GPL).

ESR wouldn't be as recognizable as he is if he had chosen to opine on
something less important and influential than RMS and his contribution.

------
snambi
RMS is not a fanatic. People portray him as a fanatic. Is Gandhi a fanatic?
But, it would be easy to portray him as a fanatic, as an enemy to
corporations. We need more people like RMS.

------
ChristianMarks
ESR's quote of Santayana is not illuminating. He might have quoted Bernard
Gert, who wrote that a fanatic is someone who violates a moral rule to follow
a moral ideal. A religious fanatic violates a moral rule to follow a religious
command. I am unaware that RMS is violating moral rules in the name of free
software.

------
brlewis
_One of my commenters reports that he showed my essay on evaluating the harm
from closed-source software to Richard Stallman, who became upset by it._

Anybody have a link to this comment? I couldn't find it.

[EDIT] After an hour nobody claims to have found it. Is there a real comment,
or is ESR just fantasizing about RMS caring what ESR writes?

~~~
tjr
I suspect this is the reference:

[http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4371&cpage=1#comment-381328](http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4371&cpage=1#comment-381328)

Luke Leighton writes:

 _i spoke to dr stallman about the assessment concepts presented here, because
i think they’re fantastic and should be more formalised, and adopted more
widely including by the FSF. unfortunately he was sufficiently upset by the
personal references that he can’t possibly recommend that. what’s the best way
to proceed?_

~~~
brlewis
Thanks!

------
cabalamat
> _There are some advantages to this strategy. It taps into old, powerful
> emotional responses in human beings – the same responses that give messianic
> religions their power. As a way of recruiting a small hard core of dedicated
> followers it’s tough to beat, and sometimes – if you’re, say, the Gautama
> Buddha or Jesus or Mahavira – you can make it scale up. But I described it
> as a trap for a reason – most such attempts do not scale, remaining tiny
> marginal cults._

Is fanatism working for RMS? Well, the German Pirate Party regularly top 10%
in the polls, which is rather better than you'd expect from a "tiny marginal
cult", so one has to conclude that it is working.

~~~
icebraining
You shouldn't mix up RMS with the Pirates. While there are obvious similitudes
(particularly in terms of privacy, DRM, etc), RMS was initially opposed to
their platform of reducing or killing copyright, since that would limit the
effectiveness of the GPL without really fixing what he fights against - after
all, lack of copyright doesn't mean you'll have access to the source, which is
a precondition of freedoms 1 and 3 [1].

[1]: <http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html>

~~~
cabalamat
> _You shouldn't mix up RMS with the Pirates_

Shouldn't I? RMS mixes with Pirates, seems to be broadly in favour of what
they stand for, and comments a lot on internal Pirate Party mailing lists.

------
anthonyb
On a slightly related note, ESR is the mascot for my new static blog
generating tool: <https://bitbucket.org/anthonyb/shithead> ;)

------
telent
tl;dr Eric explains reasonably well why he thinks RMS is a fanatic, but fails
utterly to explain why his opinion (on that or any other subject) matters.

------
toomuchcoffee
What do you call it when the crank accuses the crank?

~~~
psaintla
go back to work

------
motters
The pure pragmatism of Torvalds and the "I won't use it unless it's 100% free
software" attitude of RMS are both valid viewpoints. In practice most of us
mere mortals accept some state of affairs in between those two poles.

Ignoring software freedom as an issue would IMHO be a major mistake given the
overall direction in which contemporary society is going. In broad terms I
think RMS was right in the sense that as software becomes ever more deeply
embedded into all aspects of life, who owns and controls that software, and
the ability to audit it, becomes an important question. Theoretically, in the
long run it may not be possible to have a free society without some amount of
free software infrastructure.

------
zeruch
I am biased (I've dealt with both ESR and RMS, and had a much more personable
time with the former), but I think this is one of the better things ESR has
written, and it nails all of my major issues with RMS (almost: I know it gets
made fun of a lot but I really find his personal hygiene utterly
contemptible).

------
thebear
In my book, a fanatic is someone who unleashes diatribes on people with whom
he/she is pretty much in the same camp, apart from minor differences that
outsiders don't even understand. I am reminded of "The Life of Brian" and the
People's Front of Judea vs. the Judean People's Front.

------
danbmil99
I find this debate so very tedious. From a libertarian perspective, RMS's
arguments are just utter bs. He's basically saying two independent parties
have no right to enter into a contract that involves keeping secrets. That's
what happens when you agree to a EULA. If you don't like the contract, don't
accept it.

People have no more right to "free software" in the RMS absolutist sense than
they have right to free beer, free lunch, or free anything. (And yes, I know
the 'free as in speech' slogan, but my point is that I have a right to enter
into a contract, or offer someone a contract that limits their rights to share
certain information I want to protect.) The fact that the thing in question is
information rather than something more 'real' doesn't change the morality of
the situation one bit -- it's merely a practical consideration, that bits are
easy to copy, and cars and lunch are not.

~~~
Peaker
The parties aren't independent.

People are utterly _dependent_ on software.

Net effects mean that people aren't free to choose the software that has the
agreements they agree with.

I think the question anyone should ask -- is what kind of society do we want
to live in? One where everyone controls their computers and software, or one
where the norm is to surrender control of this part of your life to third
parties?

~~~
danbmil99
I think the open source movement (as opposed to the free software jihad of
RMS) has worked exactly how the market should work. Some manufacturers are
addicted to secrecy, DRM, draconian copy protection, and restrictive EULA's.
The FOSS movement, responding to this reality, provides alternate versions of
almost any type of software you care to use.

So why in the world would it be reasonable to force Microsoft, Apple, or
anyone else to give you something they choose to withhold? Instead, speak with
your pocketbook -- refuse to pay their tithe, and work with open software
and/or with companies whose policies on this issue you accept and agree with.

TL; DR: Market forces are almost always more efficient and less prone to
unintended consequences than top-down laws and regulations. Let the market
work.

~~~
Peaker
Firstly, claiming RMS is a jihadist is a silly ad-hominem. RMS presents a
coherent principled position, and fights for it.

Secondly, you might be forced to use Microsoft products, because your
government, industry standard, or other is using proprietary Microsoft
formats.

I think the question to ask is what the big-picture-effect of
allowing/disallowing withholding source code from users would be. We should
not use a narrow benchmark of "minimal government interference" or "maximum
personal rights", but a "yields best overall outcome" benchmark.

------
jwildeboer
ESR needs to up his pageviews? That time of the year again? Same old
"discussion" he tries to have since nsome 10 years. No new arguments, just
warming up his sentiments again. RMS has ignored this for years and s should
we :-)

------
jebblue
I'd say he is very passionate but not sure fanatic is accurate.

------
wissler
Calling someone a "fanatic" and pointing out the fact that they don't fit in
or that they make some people uncomfortable or angry does not in fact make
them wrong. Raymond has no actual argument, so it comes across as a petty
personal attack on RMS.

