Subject: Re: Understanding RMS
From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@xemacs.org>
Date: 12 Feb 2002 11:54:48 +0900

>>>>> "Ben" == Ben Tilly <Ben_Tilly@trepp.com> writes:

    Ben> [rms]'s aim is to make a free software-only world as usable
    Ben> as possible as soon as plausible.

Evidently, it is not.  That is very close to what I proposed as a
position to compromise on, and Richard replied, "Sorry, can't join
you, it would violate my principles."

"Usable" is certainly an unacceptable term, since it implies that
people morally have a choice about stepping outside of the
free-software-only sphere.  Richard denies that in categorical terms.

AFAICT a more accurate[1] statement would be "his aim is to make a
free software-only world as _used_ as _technically_ possible _at all
times starting with the present_."  Where "technically possible"
includes simply refusing to use programs that Richard deems
unnecessary when there is no free implementation.

Put that way, I no longer see room for improved cooperation.



Footnotes: 
[1]  Somewhat, but much less, biased in the opposite direction.  I
chose the parallel phrasing to make the differences clear.

-- 
Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences     http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp
University of Tsukuba                    Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
              Don't ask how you can "do" free software business;
              ask what your business can "do for" free software.