13 ms·

Eric Raymond: Why I think RMS is a fanatic, and why that matters

217 points by bhughes 14y ago

jgrahamc 14y ago
"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/ 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 14y ago
  >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 14y ago
    >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?
    - smithzvk 14y ago
      It is interesting that you should bring up SpaceX. If SpaceX used the GPL, there is nothing to say that you would ever get to explore that source code. The only time you would be guaranteed the source is if you have a rocket of your own and are using their control system, which is arguably when this becomes more than just a wonderful curiosity and becomes truly important. The GPL doesn't stop software developers from making money, only certain software developers that would like to market their software software in certain ways, like sell it as if it is a scarce commodity when it is not. Although I'll have to take his word for it, RMS is quick to point out that the vast majority of software is produced under private contracts or internally. Under these situations, the GPL has no "not getting paid" issues for developers as the software you produce under contract is the companies to distribute under the GPL or not distribute. In fact, the FSF has an explicit statement that NDAs for contracted GPL work are acceptable (https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DevelopChangesUnderNDA https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DevelopChangesUnde...). RMS doesn't have a problem with companies keeping their secrets or with developers not allowing you to see the source code they write so long as it isn't on your computer. The flip side is that he does have a problem with the independent developer that wants to write a closed source program and milk it for all it's worth by selling it by the copy or the subscription to end users. Admittedly this is a well represented group on Hacker News and amongst entrepreneurs in general, probably because copying bits can be a quick and/or easy way to make money when compared to getting paid for the actual development directly. To his credit, RMS has been fairly clear (at least recently) that writing GPL software to sell copies is not a viable business model. And no, I don't think that developing proprietary software so that you can force a false scarcity should be called evil, but perhaps immoral is not too far off, and certainly sketchy. edit: Actually, on second thought, I think RMS hasn't been clear on this; he seems to refuse to answer the question because it is irrelevant. If the business practice is immoral, it doesn't matter if it is viable. I took his silence as conceding the point.
      - cube13 14y ago
        >It is interesting that you should bring up SpaceX. If SpaceX used the GPL, there is nothing to say that you would ever get to explore that source code. The only time you would be guaranteed the source is if you have a rocket of your own and are using their control system, which is arguably when this becomes more than just a wonderful curiosity and becomes truly important. I've been trying to figure out a good way to post this. It's simply a problem with the market that the code is intended for. On one hand, you have applications like Office-style programs and web browsers. Every single computer user in the world uses those types of applications. So for those applications, the code has tremendous value as Open Source. Lots of people can go in and improve on it. SpaceX's code, on the other hand, is incredibly specific for it's purpose. It's intended to be used with a specific hardware configuration, with users that have been trained to a high level with it's use. It's less valuable to the public, because the only people that can really make good use of the code are SpaceX engineers. Even the orbital guidance code is not that interesting, because variations of it have existed for the last half century, and it's equations and algorithms that just about any serious amateur astronomer should be aware of.
  - tytr 14y ago
    But then you have a corporation like Google adopting "Don't be evil" as its value statement. It's obvious that software nerds do have some concept of "evil" as it applies to software, and they like to label things as "evil" or not. Nerds believe the potential for "evil" exists through software. Even if they are not fanatics.
- cheatercheater 14y ago
  I agree with RMS on many points, but I think you're misguided: > I've always used the GPL for licensing my open source code ITYM "free software" > specifically because it ensures that it stays open and that improvements are given back. No, it does not. Any software not being redistributed does not have to publish its improvements. And even if it does publish the improvements, they don't have to be made accessible in any useful way (for example, just a source dump, rather than a version control repo). And even if it is made accessible in some useful way, often the projects don't end up contributing back upstream (Hello Ubuntu!) > On one occasion I've been persuaded to use another license so that $CORP could use the code (http://gmsl.sf.net/ 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 They still can. You're confused about licensing and what GPL does. HOWEVER, I do resonate with your concerns. I think the world needs to start making programs which are NOT "free" according to RMS, in that if someone uses the program, and he improves it, he has to give back to the general population. How to execute this properly is another question, but I really want to be able to release code which is a public good, rather than something everyone can take, without ever giving back.
  - luser001 14y ago
    Ubuntu doesn't contribute to upstream? What do you mean? The limitations you point out on publishing changes are nits imho. It's far better than nothing, and social pressure has been successfully used in many cases to make sure proper SCM logs are sent.
    - cheatercheater 14y ago
      I'd upvote for humour.
  - dpark 14y ago
    The Affero license sounds closer to what you want. It doesn't stop someone from using the code internally without releasing improvements, but it does stop a company from building a network-based product on top of your code without releasing their improvements. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.html Beyond that, though, it sounds like what you want is actually a bunch of mandatory process bureaucracy. You seem to want everyone to be required to contribute to the original repository, but that's a maintenance nightmare. This would pretty much prohibit forks (pushing changes upstream from a heavily modified fork is non-trivial), and add senseless work to lots of derivatives (e.g. some project B uses a tiny piece from A, but now has to attempt to send all changes upstream, no matter how irrelevant).
- smsm42 14y ago
  "it ensures that it stays open and that improvements are given back" Actually, this phrase can be understood in two ways: 1. I want to ensure that the software is improved and the improvements are shared. 2. I want to ensure that the if the software is improved, then improvements are given back. If it's not happening, I prefer it not to be improved or used. The difference between these two are the difference between OSS and FSF. I think the latter doesn't have better moral claim at improving the world than the former, since it bundles positive environmental change (making better code available for more people) with control over other people's behavior (I won't allow you to benefit from the change unless you act as I like). It's like one person giving to charities with no preconditions and another giving only to charities that support his political views. Both approaches are valid, but the latter doesn't have a base to feel morally superior to the former.
  - jcbrand 14y ago
    > 2. I want to ensure that the if the software is improved, then improvements are given back. If it's not happening, I prefer it not to be improved or used. This is false. You are free to use and improve it, even if you don't want to give your improvements back. But then you are just not allowed to distribute the software with your changes as closed source. > It's like one person giving to charities with no preconditions and another giving only to charities that support his political views. That is a crap analogy. The people who don't want to open source their improvements to GPL'd code aren't charities, they are businesses who want to make money of other people's work. The GPL provides a kind of compensation to these people for their work. Which is the guarantee that all (distributed) improvements will be GPL'd as well. That's one of the main reasons why I like the GPL. I know I will in some form be compensated for my labour (as opposed to BSD), in the sense that any improvements to it will come back to me.
    - smsm42 14y ago
      You seem to be confusing political stance with GPL legal language. GPL legal language, due to the way copyright works, may not allow the author to control usage - even though Affero GPL comes close. But mere fact that the ASP scenario is called a "loophole" and mere fact that Affero GPL exists suggests that the use of improved software without distribution of the improvements is considered something that needs to be discouraged. You missed the point of the analogy. The point was that if somebody gives away his work for charitable reasons without any strings attached, and somebody else demands that whoever uses that work behaves in certain way that is politically approved by the giver - the latter has little base for claims of moral high-ground over the former. It is an empirical fact that restrictive licenses like GPL lead to more friction in integrating various software projects, often making it impossible to use existing code and requiring to reimplement existing functionality from scratch. Again, this is fine if the goal is certain political action and not just improving the world of software available. You of course are entitled for compensation for your work, and entitled to choose in which form it comes. However I do not see a base for claiming that your requirement of compensation somehow morally superior to both people that prefer monetary compensation and people that do not require any compensation at all and allow their work to be used freely by anybody.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
_delirium 14y ago
An argument between RMS and ESR over who's the bigger fanatic is not likely to produce very enlightening results...
- zbuc 14y ago
  ESR doesn't strike me as particularly fanatical from what I know of him. Are you thinking of something in particular?
  - _delirium 14y ago
    Have you read much of his writing style, or any of his disputes with others? They seem to always end up in hyperbolic, very personal polemics, like this one. Look up his encounters over the years with Bruce Perens, or RMS several times, or anyone ESR considers a "left-liberal". Also, climate scientists are malevolent frauds, in his view, Barack Obama is the worst president and anyone who can't see that is intellectually dishonest, etc., etc. Honestly I suspect his distaste for Stallman has more to do with general politics than free-software politics in particular; ESR is an anarcho-capitalist and Stallman is leftish. Not that that makes ESR particularly unique, but I wouldn't nominate him as a representative of even-keeled pragmatists; his temperament is much closer to the firebrand type that RMS and Theo de Raadt represent.
    - kamaal 14y ago
      The difference is RMS is a fanatic with tons of accomplishments in his bag. Blog Noise to work ratio is too high in ESR's case. I don't know what his contributions to software are. Or when was the last time I heard some major contribution from him. He always seems to find something to bad mouth. I would consider RMS a super achiever compared to ESR.
      - papsosouid 14y ago
        Right, RMS at least used to write code. ESR has always been a creepy hacker fanboy, latching on to and idolizing hacker culture, but has never been part of it, and never produced any code.
nextstep 14y ago
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.
- hobin 14y ago
  I have no love for ESR, but of course it doesn't. It's about the reaction of RMS to ESR's essay in which he addresses that particular point.
- ubernostrum 14y ago
  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 14y ago
    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.
cageface 14y ago
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 14y ago
  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.)
Paul_S 14y ago
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.
cromulent 14y ago
"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 14y ago
  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."
kamaal 14y ago
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.
- cheatercheater 14y ago
  > But I see ESR as a epitome of hyperbole, bad mouthing, hating people because of their belief, faith and their way of life. Then you haven't stumbled upon kuro5hin I take it?
- pjscott 14y ago
  > People like ESR generally don't get taken seriously. You realize that this is practically a textbook example of an ad hominem fallacy, right?
  - 14y ago
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
gwern 14y ago
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.
brlewis 14y ago
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 14y ago
  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 14y ago
    Thanks!
mindcrime 14y ago
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.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
  - mindcrime 14y ago
    but he is a negative influence on getting people, and especially companies, to adopt FOSS in the first place. Is he really though? I mean, superficially one might assume such a thing about a lightning-rod figure like rms, but is there any actual evidence of this? And, if there is, is there actually any way to quantify this effect and weight it against the positive effect he has? I can't prove my case either, but I still believe that - on balance - rms is a positive influence. Note that I'm not saying I agree with him on everything... I'm no Stallman acolyte or anything. I just think esr is overstating the case for any damage done by rms.
- jiggy2011 14y ago
  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).
meric 14y ago
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 14y ago
  I find that comment (and the comment he's replying to) more interesting than anything in the post itself.
cstross 14y ago
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 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.)
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- arthi 14y ago
  No doubt you feel the same way about Rick Santorum.
  - cynicalkane 14y ago
    To elaborate on this, fanaticism often looks like a great idea to those allied with the fanatics, even if they disagree with their behavior. But people should not feel entitled to fanaticism because they think they are right, because that's how you get people like Santorum. Everyone thinks they are right, after all. It's hypocritical to say fanaticism is a luxury permissible to the "good guys" and not to the "bad guys".
  - graeme 14y ago
    That would only be true if he thought santorumms ideas were generally good, but too extreme.
  - nickpinkston 14y ago
    I'd say I feel the same way about Ron Paul - he brings a refreshing perspective to politics, but he's certainly not right on everything. Santorum adds nothing to the debate but repetition of the narrative that's already going on. I should add to this that no one ever likes the same tactic they use to be used against them - in this case having Stallman define an extreme position to maintain a more pragmatic narrative. All considered, I'm glad both Stallman and Paul are doing their thing - even if I don't agree with them much of the time.
luser001 14y ago
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/ https://my.fsf.org/donate/
trotsky 14y ago
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 http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/26107/pg26107.html In my opinion Eric argues against his point simply by making it.
dtbx 14y ago
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.
jiggy2011 14y ago
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 14y ago
  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.
Tichy 14y ago
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?
guelo 14y ago
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.
tptacek 14y ago
"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?
toomuchcoffee 14y ago
What do you call it when the crank accuses the crank?
- psaintla 14y ago
  go back to work
telent 14y ago
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.
cabalamat 14y ago
> 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 14y ago
  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 http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
  - cabalamat 14y ago
    > 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.
kds 14y ago
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.
Spooky23 14y ago
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.
JamisonM 14y ago
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.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
wissler 14y ago
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.
anthonyb 14y ago
On a slightly related note, ESR is the mascot for my new static blog generating tool: https://bitbucket.org/anthonyb/shithead https://bitbucket.org/anthonyb/shithead ;)
zeruch 14y ago
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).
snambi 14y ago
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.
jebblue 14y ago
I'd say he is very passionate but not sure fanatic is accurate.
bane 14y ago
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 14y ago
  "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 14y ago
    He also developed (had?) RSI. See http://oreilly.com/openbook/freedom/ch09.html#15416 http://oreilly.com/openbook/freedom/ch09.html#15416
danbmil99 14y ago
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 14y ago
  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 14y ago
    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.
jwildeboer 14y ago
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 :-)
nice1 14y ago
I know RMS of course, he's a hero; up there with Prometheus and such. Bur WTF is "Eric Raymond"?
ChristianMarks 14y ago
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.
swa14 14y ago
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.
motters 14y ago
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.
thebear 14y ago
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.

217 points by bhughes 14y ago

"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/ 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 14y ago
>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 14y ago
  >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?
  - smithzvk 14y ago
    It is interesting that you should bring up SpaceX. If SpaceX used the GPL, there is nothing to say that you would ever get to explore that source code. The only time you would be guaranteed the source is if you have a rocket of your own and are using their control system, which is arguably when this becomes more than just a wonderful curiosity and becomes truly important. The GPL doesn't stop software developers from making money, only certain software developers that would like to market their software software in certain ways, like sell it as if it is a scarce commodity when it is not. Although I'll have to take his word for it, RMS is quick to point out that the vast majority of software is produced under private contracts or internally. Under these situations, the GPL has no "not getting paid" issues for developers as the software you produce under contract is the companies to distribute under the GPL or not distribute. In fact, the FSF has an explicit statement that NDAs for contracted GPL work are acceptable (https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DevelopChangesUnderNDA https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DevelopChangesUnde...). RMS doesn't have a problem with companies keeping their secrets or with developers not allowing you to see the source code they write so long as it isn't on your computer. The flip side is that he does have a problem with the independent developer that wants to write a closed source program and milk it for all it's worth by selling it by the copy or the subscription to end users. Admittedly this is a well represented group on Hacker News and amongst entrepreneurs in general, probably because copying bits can be a quick and/or easy way to make money when compared to getting paid for the actual development directly. To his credit, RMS has been fairly clear (at least recently) that writing GPL software to sell copies is not a viable business model. And no, I don't think that developing proprietary software so that you can force a false scarcity should be called evil, but perhaps immoral is not too far off, and certainly sketchy. edit: Actually, on second thought, I think RMS hasn't been clear on this; he seems to refuse to answer the question because it is irrelevant. If the business practice is immoral, it doesn't matter if it is viable. I took his silence as conceding the point.
    - cube13 14y ago
      >It is interesting that you should bring up SpaceX. If SpaceX used the GPL, there is nothing to say that you would ever get to explore that source code. The only time you would be guaranteed the source is if you have a rocket of your own and are using their control system, which is arguably when this becomes more than just a wonderful curiosity and becomes truly important. I've been trying to figure out a good way to post this. It's simply a problem with the market that the code is intended for. On one hand, you have applications like Office-style programs and web browsers. Every single computer user in the world uses those types of applications. So for those applications, the code has tremendous value as Open Source. Lots of people can go in and improve on it. SpaceX's code, on the other hand, is incredibly specific for it's purpose. It's intended to be used with a specific hardware configuration, with users that have been trained to a high level with it's use. It's less valuable to the public, because the only people that can really make good use of the code are SpaceX engineers. Even the orbital guidance code is not that interesting, because variations of it have existed for the last half century, and it's equations and algorithms that just about any serious amateur astronomer should be aware of.
- tytr 14y ago
  But then you have a corporation like Google adopting "Don't be evil" as its value statement. It's obvious that software nerds do have some concept of "evil" as it applies to software, and they like to label things as "evil" or not. Nerds believe the potential for "evil" exists through software. Even if they are not fanatics.
cheatercheater 14y ago
I agree with RMS on many points, but I think you're misguided: > I've always used the GPL for licensing my open source code ITYM "free software" > specifically because it ensures that it stays open and that improvements are given back. No, it does not. Any software not being redistributed does not have to publish its improvements. And even if it does publish the improvements, they don't have to be made accessible in any useful way (for example, just a source dump, rather than a version control repo). And even if it is made accessible in some useful way, often the projects don't end up contributing back upstream (Hello Ubuntu!) > On one occasion I've been persuaded to use another license so that $CORP could use the code (http://gmsl.sf.net/ 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 They still can. You're confused about licensing and what GPL does. HOWEVER, I do resonate with your concerns. I think the world needs to start making programs which are NOT "free" according to RMS, in that if someone uses the program, and he improves it, he has to give back to the general population. How to execute this properly is another question, but I really want to be able to release code which is a public good, rather than something everyone can take, without ever giving back.
- luser001 14y ago
  Ubuntu doesn't contribute to upstream? What do you mean? The limitations you point out on publishing changes are nits imho. It's far better than nothing, and social pressure has been successfully used in many cases to make sure proper SCM logs are sent.
  - cheatercheater 14y ago
    I'd upvote for humour.
- dpark 14y ago
  The Affero license sounds closer to what you want. It doesn't stop someone from using the code internally without releasing improvements, but it does stop a company from building a network-based product on top of your code without releasing their improvements. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.html Beyond that, though, it sounds like what you want is actually a bunch of mandatory process bureaucracy. You seem to want everyone to be required to contribute to the original repository, but that's a maintenance nightmare. This would pretty much prohibit forks (pushing changes upstream from a heavily modified fork is non-trivial), and add senseless work to lots of derivatives (e.g. some project B uses a tiny piece from A, but now has to attempt to send all changes upstream, no matter how irrelevant).
smsm42 14y ago
"it ensures that it stays open and that improvements are given back" Actually, this phrase can be understood in two ways: 1. I want to ensure that the software is improved and the improvements are shared. 2. I want to ensure that the if the software is improved, then improvements are given back. If it's not happening, I prefer it not to be improved or used. The difference between these two are the difference between OSS and FSF. I think the latter doesn't have better moral claim at improving the world than the former, since it bundles positive environmental change (making better code available for more people) with control over other people's behavior (I won't allow you to benefit from the change unless you act as I like). It's like one person giving to charities with no preconditions and another giving only to charities that support his political views. Both approaches are valid, but the latter doesn't have a base to feel morally superior to the former.
- jcbrand 14y ago
  > 2. I want to ensure that the if the software is improved, then improvements are given back. If it's not happening, I prefer it not to be improved or used. This is false. You are free to use and improve it, even if you don't want to give your improvements back. But then you are just not allowed to distribute the software with your changes as closed source. > It's like one person giving to charities with no preconditions and another giving only to charities that support his political views. That is a crap analogy. The people who don't want to open source their improvements to GPL'd code aren't charities, they are businesses who want to make money of other people's work. The GPL provides a kind of compensation to these people for their work. Which is the guarantee that all (distributed) improvements will be GPL'd as well. That's one of the main reasons why I like the GPL. I know I will in some form be compensated for my labour (as opposed to BSD), in the sense that any improvements to it will come back to me.
  - smsm42 14y ago
    You seem to be confusing political stance with GPL legal language. GPL legal language, due to the way copyright works, may not allow the author to control usage - even though Affero GPL comes close. But mere fact that the ASP scenario is called a "loophole" and mere fact that Affero GPL exists suggests that the use of improved software without distribution of the improvements is considered something that needs to be discouraged. You missed the point of the analogy. The point was that if somebody gives away his work for charitable reasons without any strings attached, and somebody else demands that whoever uses that work behaves in certain way that is politically approved by the giver - the latter has little base for claims of moral high-ground over the former. It is an empirical fact that restrictive licenses like GPL lead to more friction in integrating various software projects, often making it impossible to use existing code and requiring to reimplement existing functionality from scratch. Again, this is fine if the goal is certain political action and not just improving the world of software available. You of course are entitled for compensation for your work, and entitled to choose in which form it comes. However I do not see a base for claiming that your requirement of compensation somehow morally superior to both people that prefer monetary compensation and people that do not require any compensation at all and allow their work to be used freely by anybody.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

_delirium 14y ago

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

zbuc 14y ago
ESR doesn't strike me as particularly fanatical from what I know of him. Are you thinking of something in particular?
- _delirium 14y ago
  Have you read much of his writing style, or any of his disputes with others? They seem to always end up in hyperbolic, very personal polemics, like this one. Look up his encounters over the years with Bruce Perens, or RMS several times, or anyone ESR considers a "left-liberal". Also, climate scientists are malevolent frauds, in his view, Barack Obama is the worst president and anyone who can't see that is intellectually dishonest, etc., etc. Honestly I suspect his distaste for Stallman has more to do with general politics than free-software politics in particular; ESR is an anarcho-capitalist and Stallman is leftish. Not that that makes ESR particularly unique, but I wouldn't nominate him as a representative of even-keeled pragmatists; his temperament is much closer to the firebrand type that RMS and Theo de Raadt represent.
  - kamaal 14y ago
    The difference is RMS is a fanatic with tons of accomplishments in his bag. Blog Noise to work ratio is too high in ESR's case. I don't know what his contributions to software are. Or when was the last time I heard some major contribution from him. He always seems to find something to bad mouth. I would consider RMS a super achiever compared to ESR.
    - papsosouid 14y ago
      Right, RMS at least used to write code. ESR has always been a creepy hacker fanboy, latching on to and idolizing hacker culture, but has never been part of it, and never produced any code.

nextstep 14y ago

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.

hobin 14y ago
I have no love for ESR, but of course it doesn't. It's about the reaction of RMS to ESR's essay in which he addresses that particular point.
ubernostrum 14y ago
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 14y ago
  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.

cageface 14y ago

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 14y ago
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.)

Paul_S 14y ago

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.

cromulent 14y ago

"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 14y ago
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."

kamaal 14y ago

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.

cheatercheater 14y ago
> But I see ESR as a epitome of hyperbole, bad mouthing, hating people because of their belief, faith and their way of life. Then you haven't stumbled upon kuro5hin I take it?
pjscott 14y ago
> People like ESR generally don't get taken seriously. You realize that this is practically a textbook example of an ad hominem fallacy, right?
- 14y ago

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

gwern 14y ago

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.

brlewis 14y ago

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 14y ago
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 14y ago
  Thanks!

mindcrime 14y ago

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.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
- mindcrime 14y ago
  but he is a negative influence on getting people, and especially companies, to adopt FOSS in the first place. Is he really though? I mean, superficially one might assume such a thing about a lightning-rod figure like rms, but is there any actual evidence of this? And, if there is, is there actually any way to quantify this effect and weight it against the positive effect he has? I can't prove my case either, but I still believe that - on balance - rms is a positive influence. Note that I'm not saying I agree with him on everything... I'm no Stallman acolyte or anything. I just think esr is overstating the case for any damage done by rms.
jiggy2011 14y ago
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).

meric 14y ago

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 14y ago
I find that comment (and the comment he's replying to) more interesting than anything in the post itself.

cstross 14y ago

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 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.)

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
arthi 14y ago
No doubt you feel the same way about Rick Santorum.
- cynicalkane 14y ago
  To elaborate on this, fanaticism often looks like a great idea to those allied with the fanatics, even if they disagree with their behavior. But people should not feel entitled to fanaticism because they think they are right, because that's how you get people like Santorum. Everyone thinks they are right, after all. It's hypocritical to say fanaticism is a luxury permissible to the "good guys" and not to the "bad guys".
- graeme 14y ago
  That would only be true if he thought santorumms ideas were generally good, but too extreme.
- nickpinkston 14y ago
  I'd say I feel the same way about Ron Paul - he brings a refreshing perspective to politics, but he's certainly not right on everything. Santorum adds nothing to the debate but repetition of the narrative that's already going on. I should add to this that no one ever likes the same tactic they use to be used against them - in this case having Stallman define an extreme position to maintain a more pragmatic narrative. All considered, I'm glad both Stallman and Paul are doing their thing - even if I don't agree with them much of the time.

luser001 14y ago

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

trotsky 14y ago

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 http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/26107/pg26107.html In my opinion Eric argues against his point simply by making it.

dtbx 14y ago

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.

jiggy2011 14y ago

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 14y ago
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.

Tichy 14y ago

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?

guelo 14y ago

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.

tptacek 14y ago

"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?

toomuchcoffee 14y ago

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

psaintla 14y ago
go back to work

telent 14y ago

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.

cabalamat 14y ago

> 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 14y ago
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 http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
- cabalamat 14y ago
  > 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.

kds 14y ago

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.

Spooky23 14y ago

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.

JamisonM 14y ago

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.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

wissler 14y ago

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.

anthonyb 14y ago

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

zeruch 14y ago

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).

snambi 14y ago

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.

jebblue 14y ago

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

bane 14y ago

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 14y ago
"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 14y ago
  He also developed (had?) RSI. See http://oreilly.com/openbook/freedom/ch09.html#15416 http://oreilly.com/openbook/freedom/ch09.html#15416

danbmil99 14y ago

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 14y ago
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 14y ago
  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.

jwildeboer 14y ago

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 :-)

nice1 14y ago

I know RMS of course, he's a hero; up there with Prometheus and such. Bur WTF is "Eric Raymond"?

ChristianMarks 14y ago

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.

swa14 14y ago

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.

motters 14y ago

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.

thebear 14y ago

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.