FSF doesn't like a service that doesn't operate exactly how the FSF thinks they should. Shocking.
I don't take anything they or their pseudo-communist leader say seriously anymore. Back when Stallman started attacking OpenBSD because of their ports tree I knew he had finally lost it.
I expect that by "communism" the poster means "a belief system I don't agree with"[0]. (In fairness, given that there are probably dozens of mutually-incompatible Marxist/socialist/communist philosophies, combined with the poster's use of the prefix "pseudo", means that pretty much any belief can, with sufficient effort, be described as "pseudo-communist".)
[0] (My understanding (I'm Canadian) is that this use of the word is a rather quaint Americanism, and has, fortunately, mostly failed to propagate into other dialects of English.)
because it gives my rant a nice tinge of political edginess.
I view the FSF as software socialists, as in they have a utopian view of how things should be and everyone should buy in and give all of their stuff to everyone else for the good of the community. I also view socialism as an impossible ideal to achieve. In my opinion, all attempts at socialism have ended in communism, where the ruling class tells the people they have socialism but in reality the people at the top of the chain don't buy into it and live much better lives.
Finally, I used the prefix "pseudo" because obviously we're talking about software and not the rise and fall of empires (although Facebook is sort of a digital empire) so I didn't want to attach a full-on label of "communism" to it.
edit: I'm sure someone who has studied politics way more than I have will come in here and point out that I don't know my ass from a hole in the ground, and that's fine. I bitched about the FSF and I feel better so my mission was accomplished.
Yes, vote me down further! PUNISH ME FOR USING WORDS YOU DO NOT LIKE.
I'm sure someone who has studied politics way more than I have will come in here and point out that I don't know my ass from a hole in the ground, and that's fine.
Hello! :)
Socialism, Communism, et all are very broad terms. It would behoove any points you make to not use them pejoratively, because they are simply too broad to use in the way you're using them. Especially utopianism, which no more describes socialists than it describes many capitalists.
You could make an argument that the FSF follows the ideals of a very soft libertarian socialism, but that's a stretch.
The FSF is very single-issue, they don't talk about social equality, they don't even have a critique of capitalism and wages. If they're communists, they're particularly undeveloped ones.
He's against software copyrights (in their current form) but he's not against trade-marks, for example, which are usually included in the vague term "intellectual property".
Stallman repeatedly condemns the use of the term "intellectual property", because it: A) lumps together a bunch of unrelated/dissimilar things (Copyrights, patents, trade marks, trade secrets) and B) because it implies that they are all "property" and should be owned, like property, perpetually.
Consequently, it's not clear to me how it's possible even to have a free market in intellectual work product, as opposed to a free market in labor, without some kind of legally-enforceable rights in intellectual property.
Bias disclosure: I'm an IP lawyer by background.
EDIT: The GPL couldn't exist without IP rights, that is, the right (under copyright law) to haul others into court to force them to comply with the GPL terms or to fine them for failing to do so.
The fair criticism of Stallman is that he is absolutist, idealist, extreme, and uncompromising. Whether those things are positive or negative is really up to how you feel about the relative importance of Free Software vs. other issues.
I am personally willing to compromise quite a bit on the free software issues for other gains, but I think the "right to read" consideration for consuming materials other than code are less ok for compromise. I use and enjoy facebook, but look at their motivations and culture as a company before deciding how much to trust them.
I trust the people at facebook a lot more than a lot of companies, so one of my main concerns with facebook is that third parties might purchase, steal, or compel access to their data to use against users (e.g. Corrupt governments).
Comments
FSF doesn't like a service that doesn't operate exactly how the FSF thinks they should. Shocking.
I don't take anything they or their pseudo-communist leader say seriously anymore. Back when Stallman started attacking OpenBSD because of their ports tree I knew he had finally lost it.
Why do you use words like communism when you don't know what they mean?
I expect that by "communism" the poster means "a belief system I don't agree with"[0]. (In fairness, given that there are probably dozens of mutually-incompatible Marxist/socialist/communist philosophies, combined with the poster's use of the prefix "pseudo", means that pretty much any belief can, with sufficient effort, be described as "pseudo-communist".)
[0] (My understanding (I'm Canadian) is that this use of the word is a rather quaint Americanism, and has, fortunately, mostly failed to propagate into other dialects of English.)
because it gives my rant a nice tinge of political edginess.
I view the FSF as software socialists, as in they have a utopian view of how things should be and everyone should buy in and give all of their stuff to everyone else for the good of the community. I also view socialism as an impossible ideal to achieve. In my opinion, all attempts at socialism have ended in communism, where the ruling class tells the people they have socialism but in reality the people at the top of the chain don't buy into it and live much better lives.
Finally, I used the prefix "pseudo" because obviously we're talking about software and not the rise and fall of empires (although Facebook is sort of a digital empire) so I didn't want to attach a full-on label of "communism" to it.
edit: I'm sure someone who has studied politics way more than I have will come in here and point out that I don't know my ass from a hole in the ground, and that's fine. I bitched about the FSF and I feel better so my mission was accomplished.
Yes, vote me down further! PUNISH ME FOR USING WORDS YOU DO NOT LIKE.
I'm sure someone who has studied politics way more than I have will come in here and point out that I don't know my ass from a hole in the ground, and that's fine.
Hello! :)
Socialism, Communism, et all are very broad terms. It would behoove any points you make to not use them pejoratively, because they are simply too broad to use in the way you're using them. Especially utopianism, which no more describes socialists than it describes many capitalists.
You could make an argument that the FSF follows the ideals of a very soft libertarian socialism, but that's a stretch.
The FSF is very single-issue, they don't talk about social equality, they don't even have a critique of capitalism and wages. If they're communists, they're particularly undeveloped ones.
Your logic is really taking the air out of my rant. This is more entertaining than doing actual work though so that's why I'm still going with it.
"Everything must be shared" sounds like a reasonable (if simplified) definition for both communism and FSF's goals.
Only if you understand neither.
Stallman supports the free market, he's just anti intellectual property.
He's against software copyrights (in their current form) but he's not against trade-marks, for example, which are usually included in the vague term "intellectual property".
Stallman repeatedly condemns the use of the term "intellectual property", because it: A) lumps together a bunch of unrelated/dissimilar things (Copyrights, patents, trade marks, trade secrets) and B) because it implies that they are all "property" and should be owned, like property, perpetually.
> Stallman supports the free market, he's just anti intellectual property.
Without property rights, I'm not sure what if anything -- except services, a.k.a. labor -- can be consistently monetized in a free market.
In other words, in a world without property rights, the only thing of (monetary) value is labor.
And if memory serves, the labor theory of value is the foundation of Marxian economics; see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value.
Consequently, it's not clear to me how it's possible even to have a free market in intellectual work product, as opposed to a free market in labor, without some kind of legally-enforceable rights in intellectual property.
Bias disclosure: I'm an IP lawyer by background.
EDIT: The GPL couldn't exist without IP rights, that is, the right (under copyright law) to haul others into court to force them to comply with the GPL terms or to fine them for failing to do so.
He believes in private property, just not copyright.
The fair criticism of Stallman is that he is absolutist, idealist, extreme, and uncompromising. Whether those things are positive or negative is really up to how you feel about the relative importance of Free Software vs. other issues.
I am personally willing to compromise quite a bit on the free software issues for other gains, but I think the "right to read" consideration for consuming materials other than code are less ok for compromise. I use and enjoy facebook, but look at their motivations and culture as a company before deciding how much to trust them.
I trust the people at facebook a lot more than a lot of companies, so one of my main concerns with facebook is that third parties might purchase, steal, or compel access to their data to use against users (e.g. Corrupt governments).