Toolkit

Story: My response to Richard Stallman

• 
• 

I'm sorry, John. Truly. I hope you don't feel offended or slighted by my comments. I posted two of those previous contributions: the ones that say 'philospher' from 'Canada.'

Stallman says at every occasion that his goal is to benefit the users of software. You call this doublespeak and say that he's really out to benefit developers, hidden under the guise of helping users. Your Free Boat example, I fear, has failed to clarify this for me. Precisely, in what way, do you find that Stallman's activities aid developers at the expense of users? It's a simple question. This is your claim. Please provide evidence to support it.

Let me add that I am impressed with your willingness to 'duke it out' in the talkbacks. I applaud you for this. In fact, that's the only reason I read what you write. I want to make it clear that, in spite of the fact that I find your arguments wanting in many respects, I think you're very courageous for defending them in the talkbacks.

I suppose the only thing I was attempting to impress upon you is that, over the years, many people have presented evidence to refute you. Just as, in my previous post, I asked two fundamental questions of you to which you failed to reply. I understand you have another article coming out Monday. I imagine that your critics will have to follow you there to post the same questions, again. I mean no offense by this. I'm simply stating that this is the pattern I've found you to follow.

BTW, for the sake of clarity, these are the two fundamental questions I've posted that you saw fit not to tackle:

1. If we assume, for the moment, that proprietary software damages freedom, why should we continue to support it? IOW, what are the benefits of proprietary software that you feel would mitigate any purported damage to freedom? I know you feel that it doesn't damage freedom. We've heard that many times. I'm asking, if it did, what arguments would you make for it?

2. You've stated over and over again that proprietary software is better able to respond to volatile and uncertain market conditions than is free software. What evidence do you have for this? I know that you've said that 'experimentation' is expensive and that only proprietary software can meet this. If that's true, what evidence do you have that experimentation is expensive, generally, and, more specifically, that experimentation needs to be expensive?

Cheers!

• 
• 

• 
• 
• 

Full Talkback thread