On Sun, 3 Dec 2000, Alessandro Rubini wrote:
Since I've seen no replies to this, yet, I'm posting mine.
the FS philsophy [...] this reminds me of the ideas and the names of prjects and similars [...] (e.g.technology for the people, $thing for the people) (I find nothing bad in this))
While I don't find it bad, either, I think the issues of libre [1] software are detached ("orthogonal") from political movements. I don't oppose your (or anyone else's) political ideas, I'd just better not mix them in the fight for libre programs. What I state in my talks about GNU/Linux is that libre software incorporates both leftist and rightist ideas. While it promotes equal shares of (potential) knowledge to everyone (leftist), it also promotes real competition in productive markets, by preventing monopolies and maximizing economical transactions and technical innovation (rightist).
1st of all, as far as I know, rightism is more 'nation-based' and/or supports agressive capitalism, that puts money above all, almost inlcldung human lives (in the context of exploiting people). 2nd, the FS movement, as far as I know, ranges from CENTER to LEFT, maybe 1 degree to the right. Center ios for democracy, Left is for socialism.
I'm not versed in political ideologies or economical theories, but the fact that nobody diputed my views has been conforting so far. But, whether or not my statement is correct, we should by any mean avoid to associate our movement to any political ideology or party. For every people you approach to a movement (like FS) because of political views there is one that discards the movement for the same reason. And I think the wiser of the two approaches is the one refusing :)
That said, software is a hot political topic, in the true and original meaning of the word "political". Everything that has economic or social effects is political, as it has effect on the life of the people and the country (the "polis", greek).
I agree with that point.
My pages about libre software (http://www.linux.it/GNU, although I've not been updating them for a while) are "political material about free software".
[...] we shall try to fight proprietary software all around Europe (and a bit out of it if needed). Fighting it requires both [...]
That's another error, in my opinion. We should never fight someone or something. Whe should rather promote a different views. The positive attitude is much better, both psychologically (for us who fight/promote) and practically. For those who fight, there are friends and enemies, which is an overall bad attitude. Especially in a field of ideas, where people and companies adapt their ideas and marketing techniques to a changing environment.
I mean fight as in oppose, although I think 'oppose' is more of a passi ve verb then 'fight'. Well... Just take a look at www.gnu.org .... - _fighting_ patents - _fighting_ UCITA also www.gnu.org/philosophy/stallman-kth.html contains a cople of 'fightings'
Also, fighting is an attitude that leads to extremes. Someone may identify microsoft with the devil, while using solaris on his workstation; is this credible? Someone else may commit crimes (like vandalism against computer producers or users), how could the movement be clear of accusations if the word "fight" is in the core of the movement?
We must definitely and by all means have a positive attitude: _promote_ freedom, _demonstrate_ that you can work and live without proprietary tools, _cooperate_ with people and companies to help them change their views.
BTW: did you ever hear RMS talk about fighting?
yes... and I've mentioned it a cople of lines ago.
Thanks for your patience, and please forgive my poor dictionary when not talking of technical stuff.
/alessandro
Sinisa -- "Mors EULAe, libertas softwarei!"