On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 11:04 AM, David Kastrup <dak@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Louigi Verona <louigi.verona@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> My goal is to have an understanding of the world as close to reality
> as possible. The faster I can correct my errors about reality - the
> better.
See, that's the problem. Stallman has not set out to _describe_ reality
but to _shape_ reality. That's why he has formulated principles that he
then focuses his actions about. The purpose is to make his own actions
more effective rather than excuse his own ineffectiveness.
And you still haven't read Louigi's (long) piece.
I've been involved with GNU since about 1986, when a boss/mentor introduced me to it, a step that would completely change my life. At the time, what Stallman had diagnosed and then strategized about seemed utterly self-evident to me, and it was a delight to find that there was an actual effort/plan to do the right thing.
Moral principles are a personal choice. You don't get to make his
choices for him, he does not get to make your choices. The consequences
of his actions governed by his morals have an effect on my world that I
have a lot more respect for than the consequences of your actions
governed by your morals.
This is needlessly ad hominem.
You want to be more correct than Stallman but that's not the category he
is competing in.
I don't think this is true. Stallman saw something happening in the world that he thought was bad, even wrong. He wants to be correct that it is bad, or even wrong. He came up with an idea to at worst limit the damage, and at best stop the bad from happening. He wants to be correct that his idea will at least not cause worse problems than the ones he identified, and at best actually improve things in the direction he thinks is right. If you could prove to Stallman that he was wrong about either of these things, I am fairly certain he would change his mind.
Louigi's article is about both of these questions (and more): is Stallman right that proprietary sofware is harmful? is it harmful in the ways that Stallman claims? is Stallman right that free software is the right way to tackle the harm (if any) that proprietary software causes?
I don't entirely agree with Louigi's analysis and answers to these questions, but I do think that Stallman's analysis and understanding is necessarily incomplete, in part because changes since the conception of the GNU project have really had fundamental impacts on who uses computing devices and how. Because the analysis and understanding is incomplete - I mean, even the GPLv3 still can't cover the situation of audio plugin APIs as just the most trivial example of its incompleteness - I am not certain that Stallman's own conception of the right way forward will actually accomplish what he wants. I am also uncertain that what he wants is necessarily (a) what most people want (b) actually good for most people (c) good for software development.
The fact that I object to the capitalist imperative that I compete with my fellow humans in order to survive, rather than cooperate with them, the fact that I believe that the software development process enabled by the GPL is better for all software and ultimately all software users, the fact that I don't believe that software should be patentable, and many more related facts too ... these do not add up to my unfailing faith in Stallman's diagnosis and plan. and they do not stop me from being willing to ask the sort of questions that Louigi poses.
Thus far, I am satisfied that continuing to develop software as part of the "GNU universe" is the right thing to do. But it doesn't require me to cast anyone questioning that as an idiot, or self-deceiving, or ignorant, or naive, or evil.
_______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
