Re: Documentation Standards was Re: [ox-en] UserLinux
- From: august <august alien.mur.at>
- Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 16:41:10 +0100 (CET)
You're free to guess what you want.
yes, I know. In the GNU world, everyone is 'free' to do whatever the hell
pleases them, no matter if they step on someone else's tits or not.
I don't think RMS is too concerned
with the objects of trade.
the GNU manifesto is almost entirely about commerce.
His position, or at least that of the FSF,
is that software freedom is an ethical and philosophical issue:
I certainly don't have a problem with this. my position is also more
ideological than pragmatic.
software needs to be free because people need freedom. How the
software gets produced isn't really the important bit.
people need freedom? huh? what does that mean?
sounds a bit like a certain world leader talking.
RMS himself talks very much about how software gets produced in the GNU
As a programmer and general computer user, I'm very concerned about how
software gets produced, the same way I am concerned about how bridges and
communal roads and art gets produced. The GPL and all of it's
motivational factors, was a good first step. But, I think we need to look
and anticipate how to make free software sustainable without making such a
huge split between floss for commerce and hobbyist floss....actually I
would prefer to circumvent the commerce bit all-together (where possible)
and come up with some sort of grant-giving scheme similar to how art is
funded in canada, australia, and most of europe. all of these funding
mechanisms entail some sort of peer review group who choose submited
applications for funding and divvy up the pot to the ones they find most
interesting. I think this actually makes more sense for software than it
does for art.
or alternatively, I could imagine individual programmers making a software
until they generate enough revenue to release it for free. examples:
blender <http://www.blender3d.com/> and supercollider
<http://supercollider.sourceforge.net/> both are highly sophisticated
In short, I think free software programmers should be fed, and we should
be thinking about institutions (physical or immaterial) to help support
that. the GPL only addresses the distribution and use of the code. It
doesn't cover the production.
I'd say it's broadly defined enough to include all the above but by no
means be limited by them. In terms of RMS's personal politics (which
have nothing to do with the FSF) you can check out his website at
I think stallman is a nut, and I like that. I just don't think he is god,
as many (mostly young white male hackers) will want you to believe.