Talk:RMS

How about:

He is an unswerving advocate of his 'beliefs about' the rights of computer users and the virtues of 'GPL'ed software'.

That seems pretty objective and a little more concise at the same time. The reader can then follow links to 'GPL' and 'free' and so on for more details.

Digiot 23:54, Mar 10, 2004 (EST)

That seems kind of biased in reverse. May I counter with: He is an unswerving advocate of the rights he believes computer users deserve, as outlined on the fsf.org site and codified in the text of the GNU GPL. insert linkage where appropriate.

BillGarrett 01:45, Mar 11, 2004 (EST)

How about a pro-RMS paragraph followed by an anti-RMS paragraph. Give the reader a balanced view, while giving him or her all the information.

Crazyeddie 02:20, Mar 11, 2004 (EST)

Well, if it held at a paragraph each, that might not be so bad, Crazyeddie, but I doubt it would stop there. :) I don't really care about the precise wording - just looking for something a little cleaner. The 'belief' part seemed a little roundabout and I could barely follow the 'free' phrasing. Yours (BillGarrett) is similar to the edit I was commenting on. I don't wish to change it regarding RMS, but regarding the style. But if it's fine with everybody else, it's fine with me.

Digiot 04:55, Mar 11, 2004 (EST)

Spliting it into two (or more) paragraphs would clean it up a bit, make it a bit more clear. Could we possibly find a partisian from each side? I wouldn't worry too much about the article going "over length". To me, most of the articles here seem to be too short. RMS is important enough to rate quite a few paragraphs. I'm sure the moderate majority will keep fanatics on both sides in check. If a flame war does get out of hand, we could get one of the moderators to do a "disputed article" lockdown, but I seriously doubt it will come to that. I've only seen *one* of those on the wikipedia. Remember the Golden Rule of Wikis: Given enough eyeballs, any problem is shallow - including human stupidity. Crazyeddie 12:00, Mar 11, 2004 (EST)

Okay. I'm hands off on this, and will let wiser heads prevail. :)

BillGarrett 14:01, Mar 11, 2004 (EST)

Nah, I don't seriously think we should try to create a polarized article - and there's no sense sparking flame wars over commas. :D I'm okay with JohnMG's latest edit (suits you, BillGarrett?) But I do agree most articles are too short. I figure that will evolve and expand naturally over time, though.

Digiot 02:16, Mar 12, 2004 (EST)

What's there now looks great. I'd say all that's left on this article is expansion, not rewrites.

BillGarrett 13:54, Mar 12, 2004 (EST)

Hmm, instead of trying to expand this article, why don't we just import the wikipedia's article? We could use the present article as an introduction. I have a cut a paste of the wikipedia's version here.(link has been removed) Oh, and Digiot, you're right about the flame war thing. I'd blame sleep deprivation, if I wasn't permamently sleep deprived.

Crazyeddie 16:45, Mar 16, 2004 (EST)

I've cleaned up the links in the imported article. I'd say that it's ready to be dropped in, but I don't want to do it unilateraly. Bill, since you were the one to start this article, I leave the decision up to you.

Crazyeddie 17:14, Mar 16, 2004 (EST)

That's a good idea - and I appreciate the work you put into it but... unfortunately, it seems the Wikipedia and LQ Wiki's licenses don't get along and we can't just copy and paste material from there. Or even really revise it and paste it. We can use it for information and inspiration but the articles have to be completely rewritten from scratch. I'd agree it'd be Bill's decision except that I think it's just not an option.

Digiot 17:38, Mar 16, 2004 (EST)

In that case I'd say let's do the best we can, and I think so far we've proven we can have rational conversations in a Talk page. I see no reason that same restraint can't be found in the article itself. No drop-ins. I'm going to add some expansion, please let me know what you all think.

BillGarrett 23:28, Mar 16, 2004 (EST)

Bill, you added: ''Many people consider Stallman to be an essential voice in the community; many others consider him a fanatic or zealot, whose politics will damage the credibility of the community. Ultimately there is no right and wrong answer to this question.''

I think there is a right answer.

I just went to a talk RMS gave in Hartford, CT. He was most assuredly *not* a zealot. He's just a guy who wants to be good to his neighbor (software-wise, at least) -- he doesn't want to be put in a position where he can't share code with another developer. He licenses *his* code with the GPL, and only hopes that you will too. It just happens that RMS has written an enormous amount of software and given it away -- just so, in his mind (and I agree with him), the software world will be a better place.

Saying "well, there's no right or wrong about RMS being a fanatic" is just insulting to the guy and the whole free software community that has blossomed around him. Don't forget, RMS has been at this for some 20 odd years -- and he's stuck to the same key values all that time. Unswerving. It seems that only recently it's become fashionable for some folks to call him a fanatic.

And, by the way, at the meeting I was at, when Richard stood up to talk about free software, *everyone* immediately became dead silent in reverence for the soft-spoken generous fellow who started it all.

I think you should remove that 2nd paragraph.

JohnMG 00:06, Mar 17, 2004 (EST)

I think it is undeniable that RMS is seen by some in a negative light as you yourself say - "it's become fashionable for some folks to call him a fanatic". Bill merely stated that and, in an effort to forestall precisely this kind of argument, said there was no right or wrong. You take the approach that there *is* a clear decision and that he is *not* a fanatic. Which is precisely what those who *do* think he is a fanatic would say. That there *is* a clear decision and he *is* a fanatic. I think Bill's addition excellently rose above that sort of thing. The one definite thing he stated was positive - that RMS was an excellent hacker, which virtually no one disputes and is hardly insulting.

Digiot 01:28, Mar 17, 2004 (EST)

Today's terrorist is tomorrow's freedom fighter. "There is no right or wrong" is in regard to perception. If this is not clear enough, I will rewrite it. Frankly I have a lot of respect for RMS. I think "GNU/Linux" is a pointless waste of time, but at the same time I have no problem with "free" vs. "open source" being made clear. I think Stallman takes on a lot of battles that other people think should be left alone. Is that good? Is that bad? Good or bad for whom? You see the problem.

BillGarrett 02:12, Mar 17, 2004 (EST)

Bill: Ok. I think your most recent edit is well done.

''I think Stallman takes on a lot of battles that other people think should be left alone. Is that good? Is that bad?''

It's, of course, good to stick to what you believe is right and just. :) The thing with calling the OS "GNU/Linux" instead of "Linux" (which I'm guessing you're alluding to): when it came up at the talk, RMS explained that he thought it was an error to call it just "Linux". That's all. Though, I'm guessing he also finds it insulting when folks call it just "Linux". RMS, the rest of the FSF folks, and the many like-minded programmers who, over the years, have GPL'd their software and contributed it to GNU probably feel slighted that the masses picked up on their project, put the Linux kernel into it, and just went and started calling it Linux instead of GNU. Many (most?) users don't care about copyleft -- they just want free as in beer.

Anyhow, one last thing you might find interesting (I did anyway): at the talk, RMS didn't refer to "Free vs. Open Source" per se. Instead, when the topic came up, he preferred the term "copyleft" vs. open source. Maybe it's because the "free as in libre, not gratis" explanation is a bother. Dunno.

JohnMG 13:13, Mar 17, 2004 (EST)

I do find that (copyleft) interesting, but I'm hard-pressed to figure out how to make it relevant to this article. Perhaps a modification to free et al. is in order? Revising the one reference to free in here, as well, which I'll do now.

BillGarrett 14:13, Mar 17, 2004 (EST)

* blink* Why are the LQwiki and wikipedia's licenses not compatiable? Aren't they both Creative Commons? I suppose I'd better remove that cut and paste page also, if that's the case.

Crazyeddie 03:12, Mar 18, 2004 (EST)


 * Yep, wikipedia is GFDL licensed, which means you have to keep it GFDL when you copy/change it. Can't re-license it to the Creative Commons license used on this site. Would be pretty funny, breaking the GFDL license on a page about RMS ;) Ohh, and IANAL ;) Jor 06:33, Mar 18, 2004 (EST)


 * (I put a 'nowiki' in to keep the '*' from formatting in your comment, Crazyeddie.) Yeah, I thought they were compatible at first, myself. Thanks for taking care of that. (You're right Jor - that would be the definition of 'irony'. :) Digiot 20:03, Mar 18, 2004 (EST)

Gotcha. How about other "free as in speech" documents out there? man pages, HOWTOs, and the hacker's jargon file? Also, are there any advantages to the Creative Commons license vs GFDL? Could we convince the LQwiki PTBs to switch? I realize that would be an uphill battle, but it would be nice not to have to reinvent the wheel. Meanwhile, I'll take down that cut and paste article, but I'll copy it locally in case we can use it later.

Crazyeddie 15:48, Mar 18, 2004 (EST)

Did some checking on my own. Looks like the hacker's jargon file is public domain, so it can be reused here. The Linux Documentation Project can be reused verbatium or under the GPL, but modification (except, I think, under the GPL) requires explicit permission from the creator or maintainer. I believe most man pages are GFDL.

Although we could reuse the jargon file's rms entry here, ours is more complete.

Crazyeddie 16:34, Mar 18, 2004 (EST)

The Linux Documentation did mention that they were thinking about moving to something that sounded like the GDFL. It wouldn't surprise me if they'd moved to the GDFL since that page was last updated. If so, moving to the GDFL ourselves would give us access to Wikipedia, LDP, and man pages.

Crazyeddie 17:13, Mar 18, 2004 (EST)

Does anyone dislike how the article stands now? I personally think the only expansion would be "history of RMS" but that may be overkill for a Linux-questions Wiki. :) Let's hammer out some of the missing articles from here.

BillGarrett 19:06, Mar 18, 2004 (EST)

Seems good to me, at least. I agree - onward and upward. ;)

Digiot 20:03, Mar 18, 2004 (EST)