Re: Essay RFC delayed.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > From: "Eric S. Raymond" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Richard, you don't understand "human behavior" worth a damn. > > There are enough hacker misanthropes on this list that we should not get > into arguments about which of us understands human nature better. Even by our standards RMS is extreme. That's both his strength and his weakness. -- http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr">Eric S. Raymond "The power to tax involves the power to destroy;...the power to destroy may defeat and render useless the power to create" -- Chief Justice John Marshall, 1819.
Re: Essay RFC delayed.
From: "Eric S. Raymond" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Richard, you don't understand "human behavior" worth a damn. There are enough hacker misanthropes on this list that we should not get into arguments about which of us understands human nature better. Thanks Bruce
Re: Essay RFC delayed.
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > You're making simplistic statements about human behavior, > which cannot possibly be true. Richard, you don't understand "human behavior" worth a damn. If you did, you would have done the job of persuading the non-hacker world competently fifteen years ago. Furthermore, you don't *want* to understand human behavior worth a damn. You told me long ago that you thought the effort would take up too much of your think time and attention, and I see nothing in your behavior to suggest you've changed your mind since. So don't tell me I'm oversimplifying. Not only don't you have the knowledge base from which to criticize, you made a conscious value choice not to acquire that knowledge. You decided to concentrate exclusively on software wizardry instead. Well, you got what you wished for -- in both respects. You're one of the dozen or so most brilliant programmers ever to live, and you're incompetent to the point of ludicrousness at understanding the thought processes, drives, and motivations of the 99% of the population that is not wired almost exactly like you. Unlike most people, I don't consider the above observation to be an insult. If you were less monomaniacal, we might not have Emacs and a large number of other good things. Arguably you made the correct choice -- and in fact I have so argued to people who complain (for example) about your personal hygiene. Can't stand RMS? Fine. Don't deal with him. Trying to change him in any fundamental way is a waste of time, and probably not a good idea if you could manage it. Want to pose your own "non-simplistic" model of human behavior? Fine -- but don't expect me to take it (or your claim that I'm being "simplistic") seriously until I see some operational evidence that you've bothered to teach yourself a clue. -- http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr">Eric S. Raymond Non-cooperation with evil is as much a duty as cooperation with good. -- Mohandas Gandhi
Re: Essay RFC delayed.
You said some very insulting--and unjustifie--things to Ean. Wake up, man. The percentage of people who can be reached by arguments that aren't founded in selfishness is *tiny*. There you go again, exaggerating. I never lie. Exaggeration is a half-truth, and a half-truth is often worse than a lie. Disagree all you like; that won't move reality by an angstrom. Reality is more complex than you give it credit for. You're making simplistic statements about human behavior, which cannot possibly be true.
Re: Do Corporations Have Ethics?
On 30 Aug 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > The application of this to free-software advocacy is that we can use > > Eric's approach (which doesn't require any kind of ideological commitment) > > to persuade people to use the software and see that it works, after which > > they'll be more receptive to the ideology. > > Do corporations have ethics, and can they be swayed by ethical arguments? > The answer is "sometimes", just as it is for individuals. I've actually > been very pleased by the response I get from most corporations regarding > free software _once_we_get_their_attention_. A primary influencer will always be profit. As attractive as the notion of free software is at a personal level to the people who comprise the corporation, free software must be profitable to justify participation--in other words, we should reach corporations by explaining why a corporation will make more money by developing free software; I don't think it's enough to say it will develop *better* software. If it were merely ethical, businesses might only contribute to free software projects in the same way they give money to foundations--scarcely at all, and with token amounts. > But it's almost a moot point as long as individuals are important to the > Open Source movement. Some of the hugest corporations have been persuaded > to use OSD-compliant licenses by the argument "we won't work with you > otherwise", where working with us is clearly in their interest. It's up to > _us_ to be vigilant and to provide the ethics, and to provide the corporations > with motivation to go along with us for the sake of their bottom line. That > means we can't back down on our ethics: they won't hold the line for us, we > have to do it ourselves. Call me naive, but I believe that the market will promote the principles of free software in the same way Adam Smith believed the market promoted the public good. There is a special kind of misery reserved for the developer who cannot improve software due to traditional intellectual property business practices. Businesses who can mitigate that misery will find the dollars / rubles / yuen flowing their direction. . kris
Re: Essay RFC delayed.
Ok, I'm trying to stop, really. On Sun, Aug 29, 1999 at 01:37:31AM -0400, Eric S. Raymond wrote: > I have never said the free software movement was a failure. > > I have said that it reliably fails to persuade people outside the > hacker community and the 5%-7% ?NT? cohort of the merits of its case. Ah, but that is where you are wrong. The concept of free software motivated a great number of people to write free code. That free code has been put into use by millions of people. Those millions of people are a force of incredible influence that no one can ignore. Rational and unselfish individuals will always be a minority of the population. That doesn't mean that they can't have a powerful influence on the rest of society. It also doesn't mean that they must reduce their belief system to selfish and irrational terms for others to be able to consume it. It is an odd assertion that concepts such as "freedom" are not effective for influencing the average person. The world's governments have used that term with ruthless effect for generations. Most of the time nations are marching citizens off to war for selfish reasons, all the while crying "for freedom!" In the case of free software we actually have the oppurtunity to use the term term honestly. ps. I'm not ?NT?, I'm a Leo. -- ___ Ean SchuesslerDirector of Strategic Weapons Systems Novare International Inc.A Devices that Kill People company *** WARNING: This signature may contain jokes.
Do Corporations Have Ethics?
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > The application of this to free-software advocacy is that we can use > Eric's approach (which doesn't require any kind of ideological commitment) > to persuade people to use the software and see that it works, after which > they'll be more receptive to the ideology. Do corporations have ethics, and can they be swayed by ethical arguments? The answer is "sometimes", just as it is for individuals. I've actually been very pleased by the response I get from most corporations regarding free software _once_we_get_their_attention_. But it's almost a moot point as long as individuals are important to the Open Source movement. Some of the hugest corporations have been persuaded to use OSD-compliant licenses by the argument "we won't work with you otherwise", where working with us is clearly in their interest. It's up to _us_ to be vigilant and to provide the ethics, and to provide the corporations with motivation to go along with us for the sake of their bottom line. That means we can't back down on our ethics: they won't hold the line for us, we have to do it ourselves. U.S. corporations are also very sensitive to publicity and will often go to some length just to look good. This isn't the same everywhere, though. Thanks Bruce
Re: Essay RFC delayed.
On Sat, 28 Aug 1999, Richard Stallman wrote: > But the ideology of business works to discourage this, so in general > it might be most effective to use Eric's approach with business > executives, while those of us who want to spread the word about > freedom focus on the individual users as our audience. I think that in many cases the individual user's response to free software ideology is "Well, it sounds nice, but does it *work*?" IOW, a lot of people dismiss the ideology not because they disagree with it, but because they're afraid it won't produce good software. The application of this to free-software advocacy is that we can use Eric's approach (which doesn't require any kind of ideological commitment) to persuade people to use the software and see that it works, after which they'll be more receptive to the ideology.
Re: Essay RFC delayed.
Can you please take me of the list of license-discuss. I have made 3 applications already without auccess! - Original Message - From: Eric S. Raymond <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Ean R . Schuessler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, August 27, 1999 9:57 PM Subject: Re: Essay RFC delayed. > Ean R . Schuessler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > You know, I think that this is where I must totally disagree with you. > > Your contention that corporations have no notion of civic duty is both > > a simple minded stereotype and fundamentally untrue. The notion of shared > > public infrastructures is neither new nor unappetizing to large > > organizations. > > If you're so smart, why aren't *you* the person the Wall Street Journal calls? > > I know that sounds pretty snotty. I'm almost past caring that it does, because > I'm fed up with the inability of supposedly intelligent people to see past > their idealism and their prejudices. > > Your alternative fails the reality test. The shared-public-infrastructure > argument has been tried; hell, I used to try it myself when I was as naive as > you are. It doesn't work. Never mind whether it's "right" or not. That's not > the issue here, and this consistent confusion between good ethics and good > tactics is exactly your problem (and RMS's). > > Wake up, man. The percentage of people who can be reached by > arguments that aren't founded in selfishness is *tiny*. You and I > both happen to be among them -- but I know I'm in a minority, and you > apparently don't. > > Among corporate CEOs the percentage drops further because it's their > *job* to be selfish; it's their *job* to maximize shareholder value > at the expense of anything else. > > I never lie. But sometimes a partial truth is more effective than the > whole deal -- and that's exactly how it is with "free software". > -- > http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr">Eric S. Raymond > > No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound > to enforce it. > -- 16 Am. Jur. Sec. 177 late 2d, Sec 256 >
