[nextstep]

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.

[ubernostrum]

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]

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.

[pjscott]

At the time of this writing, yours is the most insightful comment posted here. Also, I'm pretty sure that both RMS and ESR would consider it a decent summary of their disagreement, which is unusual in discussions about this subject.

[swa14]

on >>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."

He's been around for some years now. He's had the time to formulate his thought on matters. It's okay to not know what exactly he said/wrote, but it's not okay to just make up stuff you thought he might say based on your own biases.

What he actually wrote, is: "Over the years, many companies have contributed to free software development. Some of these companies primarily developed non-free software, but the two activities were separate; thus, we could ignore their non-free products, and work with them on free software projects. Then we could honestly thank them afterward for their free software contributions, without talking about the rest of what they did." Which is a far cry from what you assumed he might have had to say about it.

[tytso]

I wouldn't have used the words "messianic language". I'd use the words "black and white thinking". While dividing the world into a rigid good versus evil certainly has its place: "Thou shalt not kill", for example --- although even there there are all sorts of gradations for things like capital punishment, just war theory, etc --- the use of a rigid black and white thinking is what I think is wrong with the Tea Party and Republican Party, just as I think it's what's wrong with the FSF and Stallman's view of the world.

You can't really argue about axioms, though. There's no way you can address the core issues of RMS's position, because it's a religious issue. Either God exists or it does not. Either the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists or it does not. I happen to believe the first, and not the second, but I also believe that I can never convince anyone about that using reasoned argument, because fundamentally you can't prove or disprove axioms. You can prove or disprove what follows from a commonly held set of axioms, but that's a different story.

[hobin]

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.