Re: [tlug] Proprietary derivatives of FLOSS and other absurdities

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

Benjamin Tayehanpour writes:

 > On 15 August 2013 05:18, Stephen J. Turnbull <stephen@example.com> wrote:
 > > Adam Smith's device of the invisible hand, once again independently
 > > discovered by a socialist centuries after he did.  Gotta love it!
 > 
 > Socialist? I wouldn't call myself that, really. Sure, compared to the
 > US, everything is socialist, but that's just a matter of extreme
 > perspective.

Not at all extreme.  The U.S. itself is quite socialist, with the
government owning large swaths of production facilities and directly
controlling far more (<READERMODE watch-for-irony="on">when it should
restrict itself to controlling destructive facilities</READERMODE>),
as well as invading the home to control many private activities.  Many
of these activities would be better left to the private sector, and
all of them *could* be.  True, the intelligentsia fail to acknowledge
this evident fact, but the failure of the libertarian program to
attract votes while both major parties espouse various transfers to
and protection of the economic interests of "deserving" businesses and
individuals makes it clear that socialism is deeply embedded in
U.S. politics.

 > > RMS's extremism, which is incoherent[2] and and unfair[3].
 > 
 > Ah, an interesting inversion of the old "Hitler ate sugar" logical
 > fallacy.

How would anybody be able to judge, given that you've cut the
conclusion of the argument, as well as all context?

 > "RMS has dubious opinions in certain areas, therefore all his
 > opinions and actions are dubious." Sorry, it doesn't work that way;

"Sorry," you just convicted yourself of inattention (at best).  Two of
my examples (the specious separation of software and its documentation
and his treatment of Sklyarov) directly undermine his credibility as a
"software freedom fighter," showing him to be a self-centered fanatic
concerned with promoting "hacker privilege" rather than "software
freedom".[1]  His opinion on presuming innocence on the part of the
adult in adult-child sexual relationships is not merely hijoushiki,
which bothers a lot of voters and policy-makers, although it doesn't
bother me.  (In principle I agree with him, especially w.r.t. statutory
and date rape laws.[2])  He also is falling prey to a fallacy of
assuming that the authorities can reasonably reliably distinguish
exploitive relationships from those that are genuinely voluntary on
both sides without constant invasion of privacy -- which is surely
relevant to the modern issues of enforcement of *existing* IP law,
whether that is "good" law or "bad" law.

 > Personally, I use free software because It Works.

And?  Did anybody ask that?  I thought the discussion was about how we
can protect and extend free software environments in a world with
software patents (a threat even if wielded only in cases of a
presumption of violation, which of course is very wishful thinking)
and frivolous copyright lawsuits (another form of disingenuous
intimidation), not to mention DMCA "takedowns".


Footnotes: 
[1]  99% of humanity is concerned, as you are, with the economic
implications of software freedom (access to software that works the
way they want it to), and do not care about software freedom itself.
FSFer protestations that "software freedom is for everybody" ring
hollow to them.

[2]  As implied, I actually approve of those laws.  I don't approve of
laws forbidding statutory and date rape, incest, and pedophilia
because I disapprove of minors (and in the case of date rape, men :-)
having sex, whether with other minors or with adults.  I approve of
them because they give the vastly out-gunned side of the relationship
some countervailing power in case the relationship becomes involuntary.