Re: New maintainer

[David Kastrup]

Andreas Röhler <address@hidden> writes:

> Am 03.10.2015 um 22:10 schrieb David Kastrup:
>> Andreas Röhler <address@hidden> writes:
>>
>>> Am 03.10.2015 um 21:26 schrieb John Wiegley:
>>>>>>>>> David Kastrup <address@hidden> writes:
>>>>> The whole point of GNU is the non-acceptance of software denying the
>>>>> users the fundamental software freedoms. This constitutes a moral
>>>>> judgment and as such is indistinguishable from "demonizing
>>>>> opponents" or at the very least damning their actions.
>>>> Then I respectfully withdraw myself as a candidate for
>>>> maintainer. Damning by implication is one thing; setting out to
>>>> defame other organizations in order to make one's own appear the
>>>> standard of virtue is something else entirely,
>> And not at all what I have been saying.
>>
>>>> and I do not wish to be associated with such methods.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks to all for their supporting words and encouragement, and to
>>>> the FSF for having this frank and open discussion with me on the
>>>> issues that matter.
>>> Don't think a moral is 'indistinguishable from demonizing opponents",
>>> as David writes. That's a misguided pseudo-religous approach. Also
>>> AFAIK it's not the declared FSF policy.
>> <URL:https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.html>
>>
>>      Since 1983, the Free Software Movement has campaigned for computer
>>      users' freedom—for users to control the software they use, rather
>>      than vice versa. When a program respects users' freedom and
>>      community, we call it “free software.”
>>
>>      We also sometimes call it “libre software” to emphasize that we're
>>      talking about liberty, not price. Some proprietary (nonfree)
>>      programs, such as Photoshop, are very expensive; others, such as
>>      Flash Player, are available gratis—but that's a minor detail. Either
>>      way, they give the program's developer power over the users, power
>>      that no one should have.
>>
>>      Those two nonfree programs have something else in common: they are
>>      both malware. That is, both have functionalities designed to
>>      mistreat the user. Proprietary software nowadays is often malware
>>      because the developers' power corrupts them.
>>
>>      With free software, the users control the program, both individually
>>      and collectively. So they control what their computers do (assuming
>>      those computers are loyal and do what the users' programs tell them
>>      to do).
>>
>>      With proprietary software, the program controls the users, and some
>>      other entity (the developer or “owner”) controls the program. So the
>>      proprietary program gives its developer power over its users. That
>>      is unjust in itself, and tempts the developer to mistreat the users
>>      in other ways.
>>
>> I don't think that I am wide off the mark with regard to the statement
>> I actually made rather than John's interpretation of it.
>>
>
> Sorry, can't read anything which justifies or encourages "demonizing
> opponents" or "at the very least damning their actions." Consider your
> conclusion not just wrong but contra-productive. The liberation effort
> of the soviets died from these kind of treatment.

Shrug.  I was quoting John's choice of words.  He stated:

    I don't recognize your authority to tell me what is and is not
    ethical, Richard, and think you should stop using words like
    "injustice" and "inethical" in your presentations. Not everyone
    agrees with you, so calling them wrong to paint yourself as right
    does little service to your cause.

    If you present the benefits and virtue of GNU-like systems, it gives
    weight to your message. But standing out by demonizing opponents is
    a horse that politicians have beat to death, and has never, ever led
    to lasting success.

In the end, it will be up to him to decide whether the paragraphs
I quoted are what he calls "demonizing opponents".  I considered it
likely that they were of the kind he was talking about and stated the
reasons for which I considered it unrealistic of John to expect any
change in that regard.

-- 
David Kastrup