Are they "personalities" or "hinderances"?

[techieMoe]

I may regret even asking this question because I might have to lock the thread in the future, but I'm really curious about this, so bear with me: in the OSS world today there are several very prominent people who speak very loudly about their views on a myriad of topics in the technology industry. Some of these people, such as Richard Stallman and Theo de Raadt, have contraversial ideas about what "should be". Do you think that having people like this who spend an awful lot of their time proselytizing their view of things are helping the OSS world as a whole, or hindering it by souring public opinion of those who disagree with them?

Let's please discuss this civilly. I know it can be a hot topic.

[Zelmo]

I would guess that like me, a majority of people see Stallman and DeRaadt's views as too extreme. Your use of the word "proselytizing" is perfect; they're a lot like the guys who stand in the middle of my university campus and cry for repentance and salvation to everyone in earshot.

I think they're good for the overall situation, though. They give an antithesis to the people who would prefer to keep all intellectual property private. For those cases where IP holders are willing to meet in the middle, people like Stallman and DeRaadt make that middle more of a real middle. So free software doesn't compromise as much as it might otherwise.

Just an opinion, of course.

[fingal]

It's a good question, but very hard to answer! Speaking personally I like some of the personalities: Stallman included, but I don't hang on his every word. I suspect most of us are selective about what we listen to/believe in. I'm not sure everyone in the hacker community enjoys being a 'public person': Linus springs to mind here. RMS appears to relish it. I think they help more than they hinder, creating a kind of identity for Linux OSes which is more cultural than brand orientated. I think.

[techieMoe]

I agree that I don't neccessarily believe everything RMS says is gospel. He has some hard-line issues that I disagree with heartily (such as the idea that all commercial software is bad), but he's done some great things too (emacs comes to mind). All in all I agree; most of us are probably picking and choosing what issues we champion and what ones we ignore.

[Vergil83]

(such as the idea that all commercial software is bad)

I would like to see an example of him saying this. I am sure he would say all unfree commercial software is bad, but I doubt he would say that about free commercial software.

[techieMoe]

I would like to see an example of him saying this. I am sure he would say all unfree commercial software is bad, but I doubt he would say that about free commercial software.

How about this?

The word ``free'' in ``free software'' refers to freedom, not to price; the price paid for a copy of a free program may be zero, or small, or (rarely) quite large.

From here. What that quote tells me is RMS doesn't care about whether or not you charge for it. To him price is irrelevant. What matters to him is uninhibited access to (and freedom to modify) the source code. Or did I misread what you meant by "free" commercial software?

[jonantice]

they're a lot like the guys who stand in the middle of my university campus and cry for repentance and salvation to everyone in earshot.

Everyone hates those guys. I'm a Christian and might agree with what they are shouting but I believe they don't improve people's opinions about Chritianity, in fact, they make us (Christians) look bad.
This is not totally comparable to the open source scenario but the main point remains: it makes us look more like militants than people who promote progress.

[techieMoe]

Everyone hates those guys. I'm a Christian and might agree with what they are shouting but I believe they don't improve people's opinions about Chritianity, in fact, they make us (Christians) look bad.
This is not totally comparable to the open source scenario but the main point remains: it makes us look more like militants than people who promote progress.

That's about where I stand as well.

[fingal]

How about this?


From here. What that quote tells me is RMS doesn't care about whether or not you charge for it. To him price is irrelevant. What matters to him is uninhibited access to (and freedom to modify) the source code. Or did I misread what you meant by "free" commercial software?

I believe RMS used to sell copies of EMACS for $150 after he wrote it. He refers to this in a speech which I found. You might not believe this, but I've never thought of him as a zealot or a radical. Maybe that's my European roots calling me ... He just seems like a man with a good idea to me. Just in case you can't be bothered to scroll around for the right bit, here it is:

'So, that was fine, but people used to ask me, "What do you mean it's
free software if it costs $150 dollars?" [Laughter] Well, the reason
they asked this was that they were confused by the multiple
meanings of the English word "free". One meaning refers to price,
and another meaning refers to freedom. When I speak of free software,
I'm referring to freedom, not price. So think of free speech, not
free beer. [Laughter] Now, I wouldn't have dedicated so many years of
my life to making sure programmers got less money. That's not my
goal. I'm a programmer and I don't mind getting money myself. I
won't dedicate my whole life to getting it, but I don't mind
getting it. And I'm not -- and therefore, ethics is the same for
everyone. I'm not against some other programmer getting money either.
I don't want prices to be low. That's not the issue at all. The
issue is freedom. Freedom for everyone who's using software, whether
that person be a programmer or not.'

That's his view on this point.

[bigtomrodney]

There are personalities I admire, because they are strong and are commited to their beliefs. Stallman doesn't impress me much because I think of myself as being moderate. I like to consider all options, but Stallman (and indeed his counterparts in Proprietary software) seem to be all or nothing. This to me isn't good enough. I know you need people like this to fight the battles so that we end up with a good compromise at the end, but I'm just more interested in the technology than the philosophy.

I'm not going to excuse that, and I'm not going to stick it down anyone's throat. I just don't see the point in "all or nothing".