[Upd-discuss] Re: [Upd-board] "Development", "freedom", and UPD's objectives

[Michael Hart]

On Tue, 2 Aug 2005, Richard M. Stallman wrote:

>    > I think we need to agree only on a practical direction for our aims
>    > (which we already have a statement of).  To adopt an underlying
>    > philosophical basis for them would be hard work that isn't necessary
>    > to do.
>
>    Does this seem to be the opposite of what Mr. Stallman usually says?
>
> If it seems that way, it is a misunderstanding (which may be my fault).
>
> It's really the same.

My own interpretation of your usual stance is that you DO want to
discuss the philosophical, even to the point of over-discussing it,
and I can recall several times requesting that you abandon this
overbearing policy.

Now that someone else wants to discuss something, you seem to have
reversed yourself and your position to keep them from being heard.

This is not acceptable.

Not acceptable in any forum, but particularly this one.


> For instance, the Free Software Movement aims to put an end
> to non-free software, which is a practical direction.

Well, the decision is a philosphical one, and not one all that
many people agree with.

To provide an alternative "to non-free software" is one thing.

"To put an end to non-free software" is quite totally another.

Just as you want to put an end to a previous discussion,
when previously it was you were continuing beyond. . . .



> However, people may have different underlying ways of looking at ethics
> as a whole, and still share that practical ethical goal.

And they should be freely able to disuss "different underlying ways."


> The Free Software Movement doesn't have a preference between the underlying 
> philosophies, it just sticks to its practical ethical position.

I think you are putting us on there, more than just a bit.

Your philosophy has been a major, if not THE major portion of your message.


> I think it makes sense for the UPD or any other political organization
> to follow this approach.


Tell me, has "The Free Software Movement" also become a trademark,
or just "The Free Software Foundation?"

Are you now claiming control or owndership over the entire movement?

The same question could be asked of the open source movement,
except that too many people know that the open source movement
existed long before you got involved.