[Fsf-india] Emotion, ethics, and free software

[Raju Mathur]

Hi Richard,

Thanks for the balanced look at things, and apologies for replying so
late (was on holiday).  While not absolutely necessary, I'd like to
clear up a couple of points, since my name has come up so often in the
discussion...

>>>>> "rms" == Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:

    rms> [snip]

    rms> It is terribly important to discuss the ethics of free
    rms> software, because ethics is what the Free Software Movement
    rms> is all about.  Discussing the ethics of free software does
    rms> more than just "help the development" of the movement--it
    rms> helps us understand what the goal is.  We must continue to
    rms> talk about the ethical issues.

What I'm looking for is a balance between idealism and pragmatism.
There is no denying that the ethics of free software are the most
important reason to encourage its adoption as widely as possible. On
the other hand, the average user isn't concerned about the philosophy
of free software and has to be approached bearing his/her requirements
in mind, by giving him/her a practical reason to adopt it.

Please see my earlier postings at:

http://mm.gnu.org.in/pipermail/fsf-india/2001-December/002029.html
http://mm.gnu.org.in/pipermail/fsf-india/2001-December/002048.html

    rms> [snip]

    rms> Based on what you said about him and what you quoted, it
    rms> appears that Raju Mathur contributes to free software
    rms> development, makes practical arguments in favor of free
    rms> software, and feels some anger towards some of us in
    rms> connection with the name "GNU/Linux".  What can we say about
    rms> these things?

    rms> Contributing to free software development is certainly good.
    rms> Making practical arguments for free software is also good (of
    rms> course, someone needs to make principled arguments too, but
    rms> it is not essential that they be made by the same person).
    rms> So everything that he *does* seems to be good.

    rms> The words "so sue me" show anger at us in response to our
    rms> request to call the system "GNU/Linux".  This is not nice,
    rms> and not fair to the GNU Project.  But fair treatment of the
    rms> GNU Project is not a first-rank issue.  Whether a person is
    rms> fair to the GNU Project is less important than how he treats
    rms> people's freedom.

I personally have no objection to anyone calling the OS Linux,
GNU/Linux, MS/Linux or Windix if they choose.  Where the anger you
perceive originates is from the tendency of many of the free software
purists (fundamentalists, whatever) attempting to force me to call it
GNU/Linux.  I was one of the first Linux users in India, in 1992, when
the term GNU/Linux hadn't even originated to the best of my knowledge.
I called it Linux then, and I call it Linux today.  I appreciate that
most of the OS is based on GNU software (which I've been using since I
got my first copy of a GNU tape in 1987) and in an ideal world would
be known as GNU/Linux by everyone; however I've noticed a movement on
the list to jump down the throat of anyone who appears to disagree
with the purist point of view or purist terminology.  This is
regrettable, since a philosophy which cannot tolerate dissent is
fundamentally flawed and bound to failure.  I'm glad you took the time
to post your views, since I'd like to see more openness and discussion
than a mere mouthing of free software philosophy, ethics and mindsets
-- that leads to stagnation and ultimately death.

    rms> There may be a simple misunderstanding underlying Raju
    rms> Mathur's anger:

    rms>       If Linus Torvalds and Alan Cox, Linux definitely will
    rms> (yes, I still call it Linux, so sue me).

    rms> If he is thinking of something that Linus Torvalds and Alan
    rms> Cox work on, he probably is thinking of the kernel.  The
    rms> kernel IS Linux; we all call it Linux.  The combination of
    rms> this kernel, Linux, and the larger GNU operating system is
    rms> GNU/Linux.

    rms> Perhaps Raju Mathur thinks we ask people to call Linus's
    rms> kernel "GNU/Linux".  That would indeed be wrong, but we don't
    rms> do that.  A little explanation from a friendly person,
    rms> perhaps in the Indian language of his region rather than in
    rms> English, might clear up the misunderstanding.

    rms> Many users of the system are not fully aware of the
    rms> difference between the kernel and the whole system--they
    rms> don't realize that the term "Linux" is being used
    rms> ambiguously, so they think it always refers to one and only
    rms> one thing, which is an operating system whose development was
    rms> launched by Linus Torvalds in 1991.  When they realize there
    rms> is no such thing, they see the logic of what we are asking.
    rms> I don't know whether this is true in the case of Raju Mathur,
    rms> but you will certainly find people who are confused in this
    rms> way.

There's no confusion, just a resistance to have terminology dictated
to one.  Those who give importance to names must continue to try to
use the appropriate name for each object; those (like me) who care
more about the appropriateness of a tool for a job, no matter what the
name, will continue to use it regardless of the terminology and ignore
attempts to make terminology their primary concern.

Please do read the original postings to get the full context of the
discussion.

Regards,

-- Raju
-- 
Raju Mathur          raju@kandalaya.org           http://kandalaya.org/
                     It is the mind that moves