Re: [tlug] OT: Linux is Libertarian! (was "about iphone")

["Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@example.com>]

Raedwolf Summoner writes:
 > "Stephen J. Turnbull" wrote:

 > > If there is such a thing as "communism"....
 > 
 > It is all in the semantics, isn't it, Stephen.

Of course!  I'm an academic, I take definitions and precedent
seriously.  As ruthless as the namesake of Groucho & Harpo was (and I
think the resemblance of names is no accident ;-), I don't think he
would have been pleased with the way the Soviet Union and even China
developed.

 > I have been in countries that had so-called "communist" governments

The three Cs: Christianity, capitalism, communism.  It's a shame none
has ever been tried, though there are plenty of pretenders with
embossed meishi wandering around. ;-)

 > and I have had friends who have escaped such countries (both
 > Latin-American friends from Cuba and and Nicaragua with whom I
 > share a common language, and east European friends).

>From all I hear, though Cuba is an economic disaster, the average José
there does support Castro (Fidel, anyway).  I've heard things are very
different in the other places you mention, though I can't claim actual
actual close acquaintances from any of them.

 > > But the pathology in question is not Linux or open source, it's GNU,
 > 
 > See, now you've already lost me. The only thing I "know" about GNU
 > is that "GNU is Not Unix". I'm afraid you are entering into a
 > philosophical debate with an unarmed man, to admit the obvious.

Ah.  Then let's not consider it a debate, call it a "lecture".  There
will be a quiz at the end of the period. ;-)

 > I am not a programmer and don't get into this enough to
 > realize/understand the discrepancies you have pointed out.

Programmers don't understand them either, except at the gut level.
They're really about ethics/morality, law and economics.

 > Btw, is that GNU symbol (the goat's head?) supposed to represent the devil?

ROTFLMAO!  No, it's a gnu, and it's a caricature of Stallman.  If you
don't know what Stallman looks like and can't find a photo online,
he's a dead ringer for that Asahara dude of Aum Shinrikyo fame.  At
his hairiest. :-)  Come to think of it, maybe the devil is not so far
off-target.... ;-)

 > > You're the one who left out (faux) libertarianism, by not
 > > distinguishing between open source and free software as philosophies.
 > 
 > I thought that by distinguishing between "free as in beer" and
 > "free as in speech" that I had that covered.

Ah, well at first I *was* just joking about the lecture, but this you
should pay attention to.  *Open source licenses and free software
licenses are the same.  There is no difference in their terms.*  The
license must provide "freedom as in freedom of speech".  If it does,
it is both open source and free software; if not, it is neither.

The difference is that Free Software advocates believe that property
in a non-rivalrous means of production is a sin, while (extreme) open
source advocates believe it's a beggar-thy-neighbor-and-beggar-us-all
policy (ie, stupid, not sinful).  Thus free software advocates see
free software licenses as a moral obligation.  Open source moderates
see open source as an important strategy, both for society and
business, while not denying a role for proprietary products.

Open source advocates generally consider the free software movement to
be an extremist faction within the open source community, while the
free software movement generally finds that idea repulsive and insist
that the communities are disjoint (or that lacking moral foundation,
the open source "sphere" cannot be a community worthy of the name).

 > I do know enough about this to know that a good way to get real
 > open source types apoplectic is to not make this distinction
 > [between "free as in beer" and "free as in speech"].

True, but Stallman also gets apoplectic when "use of 'free as in
speech' open source licenses" gets mistaken for the "free software
movement."  Free software advocates believe that free software is a
fundamental human right of the same kind as free speech.  Open source
advocates are a motley crew, but some see it as merely instrumental to
economic and/or enterprise development, while most see it as both an
economic strategy and a value in itself.

The more famous spokesmen for open source as a movement are folks like
Eric Raymond and Russ Nelson.  These are the apostates, the vanguard
of corporate enslavement that Stallman likes to call "backsliders" and
"enemies of freedom".  These are the 2d Amendment-toting gun nuts and
economic libertarians, too.  I've had my run-ins with both Eric and
Russ over the gun thing and over the welfare state, but there's no
question (except in Stallman's mind, and those of his dupes -- which
does not include the majority of free software fanatics, who are
pained by his rhetoric) that they are freedom-lovers in the extreme.
The kind of guys about whom Voltaire (IIRC) said, "Extremism in the
defense of freedom is no vice."

 > The LXF editors pointed out that in the interview with Stallman, in
 > every instance that they failed to make [the ritual obsequy to] the
 > distinction, he would immediately insert it for them.

Like the Communist Manifesto, the GNU Manifesto is a flawed gem of
economic analysis.  As a call to arms it's brilliant; as a program,
it's at best vague and future development of its socialist ideas shows
it to be more than a little perverse.