I guess I could have answered my own question and made a direct point of what I was trying to say - RMS's comment is wrong because it's coming from a position of weakness and a desire for a closed software market where users have to choose inferior free software. Free software will never triumph with that attitude.
I don't understand the purpose of this post. You're not asking anything, you're defending RMS with some incredibly shallow logic and then presumptuously chastising us for not caring about free software ideals, mixed with some ad hominem attacks.
Honestly, you are missing, or dismissing, important points - e.g. normal humans need software and devices and they can actually use - and the ad hominem arguments in the latter half of your post are completely out of line here on HN. If you want to have a discussion we can have a discussion but you have failed to start a good one on the right foot.
The answer is obvious based on your own personal principles, or based on RMS's stated principles?
>The only issue could only ever arises if he claimed "Free Software is more important than human lives"
He claimed that it is categorically not good to use non-Free software, with one exception for using non-Free software to develop a replacement for that software; and that "we must resist stretching [that exception] any further": https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/is-ever-good-use-nonfree-prog...
I agree, that isn't the justification. But I see it is hard to argue with RMS and his fans, since every response is essentially "Software freedom means this, and you are wrong if you think it means something else". If you think RMS is correct, that yes, from that viewpoint other people are not.
> It is not clear that RMS is driven by ego. He's motivated by a very clear goal to keep free software free.
No, he's driven by a very clear goal to prevent non-free software, even if that means preventing free software that might, potentially, in the future, be used by someone, somewhere, to create non-free software.
And I think there is a certain amount of ego in there that gets in the way of good judgement on means, in that he tends to take actions which will naturally result in the free software he protects from being involved in producing non-free software losing mindshare to either non-free software or free software not wrapped around with his preferred restrictions, which is contradictory to his purpose -- since it means that not only does software that isn't crippled in features to prevent its utility in contributing non-free software wins, but that that software is also itself either non-free software, or non-copyleft free software that can more readily directly contribute to non-free software as well as being used by people who might build non-free software through use of the features of the software.
I was addressing OP's suggestion that RMS is the authority on "Open Source" (which was the question further up the thread). He'd rather have you use/contribute (to) Free software instead.
I think what you miss is that RMS has argued against other things on the exact kind of indirect support for non-free software argument as was directed at his recommendation to buy directly from publishers; it rests on RMS's use of that criticism rather than the assumption that the criticism is valid.
Apparently, RMS would seem to prefer that technology be exclusively Free and used by an tiny elite group of hackers than by millions of non-programmers and only partly Free.
Dear RMS: when it comes to creating good UIs, FOSS has never succeeded in keeping up with non-FOSS. Were it not for Jobs, there would be far fewer computer users and the free software movement might well be even further behind.
>Apparently, RMS would seem to prefer that technology be exclusively Free and used by an tiny elite group of hackers than by millions of non-programmers and only partly Free.
It doesn't have to be this way. Thats' the point. There is no reason free software has to not be usable by the masses.
RMS has an ideal: All software should be free and open.
This doesn't work for businesses that need to profit from what they do. Keeping things proprietary, while benefiting from source-available software is impossible if a company has to release their source. Competition goes out the window.
So while RMS has a nice ideal, it doesn't generally apply.
I think we agree in principle, however the point I made originally was that it's not hurtful, false, and/or spurious claims about 'open source' that rms seeks remedy for, it's 'free software'.
Apparently, he also doesn't care about free software enough either, since he apparently prefers users to switch to something they can _use_ than allow provision of the functionality they need, on the basis that the same functionality could be used by non-free software.
"If I want to release my software under a BSD licence, it's not free software because RMS doesn't think it is."
I thought the FSF had publicly stated that BSD licenses were compatible with the GPL, and thus "Free" software. I wouldn't be surprised if rms wished the software were more free (in his sense of the word), but I don't recall him ever saying it wasn't free.
reply