OP: "You can't call it "freedom" if you only expect everyone else to just use it to agree with you and do what you want them to do."
Reply: "You can't call it freedo if you _force_ people to agree. But he's never done that."
My reply: "If Stallman could think of a legally binding way to make everyone GPL their code he's certainly given the clear impression that he'd do it."
Highly relevant to the topic of the thread. We're not discussing what Stallman CAN do, we're discussing whether he actually supports freedom of choice or whether he's interested in making everyone follow his philosophy. He has said:
"'Giving people the power to make choices about free software or not' is not the right way to think of our goal (see above). Our goal was, and is, to liberate the users from proprietary software."
"Proprietary software is digital colonization, unjust and evil. Our goal is therefore to eliminate proprietary software. We cannot eliminate it this year, but what we can and must do now is refuse to legitimize it.
In the same way, the abolitionists did not seek to give people the power to make choices about freedom or slavery. They sought to abolish slavery."
You're right, I was remembering something someone else had said. Stallman hasn't been explicit about the immorality of non-GPL licenses. He has said the BSD license is "not evil" but not as good as the GPL. He does say things like this though:
Interviewer: Linus Torvalds told he thinks "the GPLv2 is a superior license," but there's "something like 50 different open-source licenses, and in the end, the GPLv3 is just another one." Does Linus collaborate with you or GNU on free software development?
Stallman: The fact that Torvalds says "open source" instead of "free software" shows where he is coming from. I wrote the GNU GPL to defend freedom for all users of all versions of a program. I developed version 3 to do that job better and protect against new threats.
Torvalds says he rejects this goal; that's probably why he doesn't appreciate GPL version 3. I respect his right to express his views, even though I think they are foolish. However, if you don't want to lose your freedom, you had better not follow him.
Stallman does seem to think non-GPL licenses (perhaps even non-current GPL licenses) are a threat to freedom.
I had forgotten how rude GNU zealots were. Many seem to be not particularly bright as well.
Perhaps you like these quotes better?
"Proprietary software is digital colonization, unjust and evil. Our goal is therefore to eliminate proprietary software."
"In the same way, the abolitionists did not seek to give people the power to make choices about freedom or slavery. They sought to abolish slavery."
"'Giving people the power to make choices about free software or not' is not the right way to think of our goal (see above). Our goal was, and is, to liberate the users from proprietary software."'
RMS's stated goal is the abolition of software that does not conform to his concept of free. His goal is explicitly NOT to give people the freedom of choice.
My post contained verifiable facts. Yours appears to be rude ranting and personal attacks. I hope, for your sake, you're 13 and just haven't been properly socialized yet.
Since you asked, I've produced both proprietary and open source software. Currently, everything I write is either for personal use or is open sourced. And no, I don't care the slightest bit what Stallman says. He has made some valuable points but unfortunately they need to be distilled out of his zealotous ranting.
You see, regardless of my thoughts on what the optimal approach to sharing, or not sharing, code is, I believe people, including Stallman, should have the freedom to decide what is done with the code they write. If they want it to be used completely freely, that's fine. If they want to restrict it's use the way the GPL does, that's fine too. And if they want to keep their source code proprietary that is also fine. There's nothing immoral about any of those choices unless you somehow force someone to use your code. Stallman, on the other hand, believes that anyone who doesn't agree with his preferred system is immoral and I don't doubt for a second that, if given the chance, he'd make it illegal.
No, because he can't. But he does do everything he can.
Some quotes:
"The Adobe flash plug-in is non-free software, and people should not install it, or suggest installing it, or even tell people it exists."
"Writing non-free software is not an ethically legitimate activity, so if people who do this run into trouble, that's good! All businesses based on non-free software ought to fail, and the sooner the better."
Stallman believes non-free (as in non-Stallman approved) software is immoral and harms civilization. If he were made dictator of the world I have no doubt he'd outlaw it. I'm pretty sure if you asked him he'd say so too.
The whole point of the GPL is to force anyone who uses GPLed code to GPL their associated code as well. Stallman has written many times what a great thing this is, and the absence of that requirement is why he thinks things like the BSD license are immoral. If Stallman could think of a legally binding way to make everyone GPL their code he's certainly given the clear impression that he'd do it. In fact, if I remember correctly, he says in at least one of his essays that he believes non-open sourced code should be illegal.
Agreed. The first one was an obvious Slashvertisement but might have had some interest for a few people as a human interest story. The second one was a dupe. The third one is just annoying.
Ubuntu is licensed under FSF approved licenses. If RMS hasn't been wrong all these years then no matter what Canonical does the end user can just edit the source, remove the spyware, compile and go happily on his way.
Unless of course RMS's rosy view of an GNU-approved world has some cracks in it.
RMS has stated on many occasions, including in his writing, that he believes proprietary software is immoral. He's been almost explicit about the immorality of licenses he disagrees with, such as the BSD license. So yes, RMS wants everyone to buy into his philosophy, to the point of labelling everyone who doesn't as a bad person doing bad things.
Making oxygen is an involved, energy intensive process. Betting your life on it working, and continuing to work for decades, on Mars, is probably not such a hot idea.
A deceleration is a decrease in speed. Your high school physics teacher is correct that you need to specify a reference frame for that to mean anything. Fortunately we're standing on a very commonly used one and, for this, an even better one is shining up there in the sky.
It's an article in IEEE Spectrum. Spectrum is a magazine that covers things that might be interesting to electrical engineers. Often those things are background stories on papers published in IEEE journals.
If you want the science, read the paper (or the abstract if you've got attention span problems). The Spectrum article was the right thing for a Slashdot summary to link to. Especially since it's a dupe of a previous Slashdot story that DID just cover the nitty gritty.
Look around you. You already live in such an economy. More than half the people in a modern western economy are engaged in selling things to each other, playing games with paper and other things that aren't really necessary. The farmers and miners and ditch diggers that actually do things people need are a small minority.
Yet we get along just fine. The people who are freed up from watching horses pull ploughs invent new toys for us, or discover cures for cancer or write algorithms to steal pennies from investors. Ultimately most of them make the rest of us richer.
Wow. Are you feeling a little defensive about something? You just took that ball and ran straight to crazy town.
No, what I said is not a guilt trip. Try this one: "I bought a car from Joe. He ripped me off. Don't buy a car from Joe." Do you feel guilty? Everything is not about you.
"Don't let it happen again" also doesn't mean that anybody in particular was to blame for the world wars, or that anybody should scrap their navy or anything else. The wars happened, and escalated, because of shortsightedness and poor decisions by lots of different people in lots of different countries. One of the biggest lessons learned in the world wars was the horror of industrialized war. Nobody really expected the blood bath that happened. We would all, no matter what country we were born in, live in or have a fascination with, do well to remember that lesson, and not let it happen again.
Seriously, not everything is an insult directed at you. Grow up.
Except that Columbus talked some gullible Spaniards into believing the circumference of the Earth is a quarter of what it actually is. Before that break he couldn't get funding because... it was a suicide mission.
Today we're probably willing to fund suicide missions because we get to watch the result on TV.
The only reason Columbus got any funding for his trip was that he calculated the circumference of the Earth (incorrectly) showing that it would NOT be a suicide mission. When they started to get close to the point of no return his crew started to get mutinous.
Because the astronauts are likely to die prematurely due to lack of things like food, air and water. The plan is to fund their supply missions with the proceeds from their 24/7 reality show. How many reality show stars do you know who kept bringing in large amounts of cash for more than a year? Ten years? Twenty? Now consider that to ensure supplies deliveries to Mars they'd also have to be the most successful reality stars ever, for that whole time.
I've visited war memorials and museums in many parts of the world, including the US, and neither the intention nor the result has been to guilt trip anyone.
A generation of children has been born who don't remember the cold war, and a generation will soon be born who have had no contact with anyone who remembers the last world war.
The manhattan project sites in particular are an important chance to say "this war happened. This was the price we paid to end it. Don't let it happen again."
Generations who don't remember the price of war are too eager to use it as a tool.
You do have to be stupid to go live on another planet where your supplies of basic life supporting necessities are dependent on your ability to remain the greatest reality TV star ever. As soon as your ratings slip... you die. That is if you don't die of something unforeseen in the meantime (and thus get fantastic ratings for a short period).
I'm actually surprised they didn't get more volunteers.
You are aware that when we "climbed down from the trees" we climbed back up right away right? Then over many generations we slowly spent more and more of our time on the ground? Ditto with walking out of the sea.
Reading the very sparse information you've provided I get the impression you're using an ARM core. That's not the same thing as implementing an entirely new instruction set, as some posters have suggested you should. Rereading, it does sound like the OP for this thread would be happy with an ARM processor and not a completely new one.
Slashdot Mirror
OP: "You can't call it "freedom" if you only expect everyone else to just use it to agree with you and do what you want them to do."
Reply: "You can't call it freedo if you _force_ people to agree. But he's never done that."
My reply: "If Stallman could think of a legally binding way to make everyone GPL their code he's certainly given the clear impression that he'd do it."
Highly relevant to the topic of the thread. We're not discussing what Stallman CAN do, we're discussing whether he actually supports freedom of choice or whether he's interested in making everyone follow his philosophy. He has said:
"'Giving people the power to make choices about free software or not' is not the right way to think of our goal (see above). Our goal was, and is, to liberate the users from proprietary software."
"Proprietary software is digital colonization, unjust and evil. Our goal is therefore to eliminate proprietary software. We cannot eliminate it this year, but what we can and must do now is refuse to legitimize it.
In the same way, the abolitionists did not seek to give people the power to make choices about freedom or slavery. They sought to abolish slavery."
You're right, I was remembering something someone else had said. Stallman hasn't been explicit about the immorality of non-GPL licenses. He has said the BSD license is "not evil" but not as good as the GPL. He does say things like this though:
Stallman does seem to think non-GPL licenses (perhaps even non-current GPL licenses) are a threat to freedom.
I had forgotten how rude GNU zealots were. Many seem to be not particularly bright as well.
Perhaps you like these quotes better?
"Proprietary software is digital colonization, unjust and evil. Our goal is therefore to eliminate proprietary software."
"In the same way, the abolitionists did not seek to give people the power to make choices about freedom or slavery. They sought to abolish slavery."
"'Giving people the power to make choices about free software or not' is not the right way to think of our goal (see above). Our goal was, and is, to liberate the users from proprietary software."'
RMS's stated goal is the abolition of software that does not conform to his concept of free. His goal is explicitly NOT to give people the freedom of choice.
My post contained verifiable facts. Yours appears to be rude ranting and personal attacks. I hope, for your sake, you're 13 and just haven't been properly socialized yet.
Since you asked, I've produced both proprietary and open source software. Currently, everything I write is either for personal use or is open sourced. And no, I don't care the slightest bit what Stallman says. He has made some valuable points but unfortunately they need to be distilled out of his zealotous ranting.
You see, regardless of my thoughts on what the optimal approach to sharing, or not sharing, code is, I believe people, including Stallman, should have the freedom to decide what is done with the code they write. If they want it to be used completely freely, that's fine. If they want to restrict it's use the way the GPL does, that's fine too. And if they want to keep their source code proprietary that is also fine. There's nothing immoral about any of those choices unless you somehow force someone to use your code. Stallman, on the other hand, believes that anyone who doesn't agree with his preferred system is immoral and I don't doubt for a second that, if given the chance, he'd make it illegal.
No, because he can't. But he does do everything he can.
Some quotes:
"The Adobe flash plug-in is non-free software, and people should not install it, or suggest installing it, or even tell people it exists."
"Writing non-free software is not an ethically legitimate activity, so if people who do this run into trouble, that's good! All businesses based on non-free software ought to fail, and the sooner the better."
Stallman believes non-free (as in non-Stallman approved) software is immoral and harms civilization. If he were made dictator of the world I have no doubt he'd outlaw it. I'm pretty sure if you asked him he'd say so too.
The whole point of the GPL is to force anyone who uses GPLed code to GPL their associated code as well. Stallman has written many times what a great thing this is, and the absence of that requirement is why he thinks things like the BSD license are immoral. If Stallman could think of a legally binding way to make everyone GPL their code he's certainly given the clear impression that he'd do it. In fact, if I remember correctly, he says in at least one of his essays that he believes non-open sourced code should be illegal.
Agreed. The first one was an obvious Slashvertisement but might have had some interest for a few people as a human interest story. The second one was a dupe. The third one is just annoying.
Ubuntu is licensed under FSF approved licenses. If RMS hasn't been wrong all these years then no matter what Canonical does the end user can just edit the source, remove the spyware, compile and go happily on his way.
Unless of course RMS's rosy view of an GNU-approved world has some cracks in it.
RMS has stated on many occasions, including in his writing, that he believes proprietary software is immoral. He's been almost explicit about the immorality of licenses he disagrees with, such as the BSD license. So yes, RMS wants everyone to buy into his philosophy, to the point of labelling everyone who doesn't as a bad person doing bad things.
Making oxygen is an involved, energy intensive process. Betting your life on it working, and continuing to work for decades, on Mars, is probably not such a hot idea.
A deceleration is a decrease in speed. Your high school physics teacher is correct that you need to specify a reference frame for that to mean anything. Fortunately we're standing on a very commonly used one and, for this, an even better one is shining up there in the sky.
It's an article in IEEE Spectrum. Spectrum is a magazine that covers things that might be interesting to electrical engineers. Often those things are background stories on papers published in IEEE journals.
If you want the science, read the paper (or the abstract if you've got attention span problems). The Spectrum article was the right thing for a Slashdot summary to link to. Especially since it's a dupe of a previous Slashdot story that DID just cover the nitty gritty.
Look around you. You already live in such an economy. More than half the people in a modern western economy are engaged in selling things to each other, playing games with paper and other things that aren't really necessary. The farmers and miners and ditch diggers that actually do things people need are a small minority.
Yet we get along just fine. The people who are freed up from watching horses pull ploughs invent new toys for us, or discover cures for cancer or write algorithms to steal pennies from investors. Ultimately most of them make the rest of us richer.
Wow. Are you feeling a little defensive about something? You just took that ball and ran straight to crazy town.
No, what I said is not a guilt trip. Try this one: "I bought a car from Joe. He ripped me off. Don't buy a car from Joe." Do you feel guilty? Everything is not about you.
"Don't let it happen again" also doesn't mean that anybody in particular was to blame for the world wars, or that anybody should scrap their navy or anything else. The wars happened, and escalated, because of shortsightedness and poor decisions by lots of different people in lots of different countries. One of the biggest lessons learned in the world wars was the horror of industrialized war. Nobody really expected the blood bath that happened. We would all, no matter what country we were born in, live in or have a fascination with, do well to remember that lesson, and not let it happen again.
Seriously, not everything is an insult directed at you. Grow up.
Except that Columbus talked some gullible Spaniards into believing the circumference of the Earth is a quarter of what it actually is. Before that break he couldn't get funding because... it was a suicide mission.
Today we're probably willing to fund suicide missions because we get to watch the result on TV.
They're planning on funding resupply mostly through an ongoing reality show.
So yes, it's a suicide mission.
The only reason Columbus got any funding for his trip was that he calculated the circumference of the Earth (incorrectly) showing that it would NOT be a suicide mission. When they started to get close to the point of no return his crew started to get mutinous.
There's a little matter of what to breathe....
A better question is who's going to feed them when the parent company decides it can't afford supply launches anymore.
Because the astronauts are likely to die prematurely due to lack of things like food, air and water. The plan is to fund their supply missions with the proceeds from their 24/7 reality show. How many reality show stars do you know who kept bringing in large amounts of cash for more than a year? Ten years? Twenty? Now consider that to ensure supplies deliveries to Mars they'd also have to be the most successful reality stars ever, for that whole time.
I've visited war memorials and museums in many parts of the world, including the US, and neither the intention nor the result has been to guilt trip anyone.
A generation of children has been born who don't remember the cold war, and a generation will soon be born who have had no contact with anyone who remembers the last world war.
The manhattan project sites in particular are an important chance to say "this war happened. This was the price we paid to end it. Don't let it happen again."
Generations who don't remember the price of war are too eager to use it as a tool.
You do have to be stupid to go live on another planet where your supplies of basic life supporting necessities are dependent on your ability to remain the greatest reality TV star ever. As soon as your ratings slip... you die. That is if you don't die of something unforeseen in the meantime (and thus get fantastic ratings for a short period).
I'm actually surprised they didn't get more volunteers.
You are aware that when we "climbed down from the trees" we climbed back up right away right? Then over many generations we slowly spent more and more of our time on the ground? Ditto with walking out of the sea.
That would be the one, yes.
Are you implying that the US was lying when they admitted losing it? Meta-conspiracy... I like it.
Reading the very sparse information you've provided I get the impression you're using an ARM core. That's not the same thing as implementing an entirely new instruction set, as some posters have suggested you should. Rereading, it does sound like the OP for this thread would be happy with an ARM processor and not a completely new one.