Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 18:02:13 -0500 From: "G. Adam Stanislav" <redprince@redprince.net> To: Anatoly Vorobey <mellon@pobox.com> Cc: chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Why are people against GNU? WAS Re: 5.0 already? Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20000513180213.00894400@mail85.pair.com> In-Reply-To: <20000514010614.A16058@happy.checkpoint.com> References: <3.0.6.32.20000513143506.00895650@mail85.pair.com> <391D71FE.1570F551@asme.org> <Pine.BSF.4.10.10005130735370.20100-100000@hydrant.intranova.net> <391D4DAD.FD80980A@picusnet.com> <003b01bfbcdc$6059fb40$a164aad0@kickme> <391D71FE.1570F551@asme.org> <20000513205610.A22103@physics.iisc.ernet.in> <3.0.6.32.20000513143506.00895650@mail85.pair.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 01:06 14-05-2000 +0000, Anatoly Vorobey wrote: >He has argued against >intellectual property, in particular its restrictions in software; and >that is a radical and doubtable idea, but to claim it's Communist is >to make a fool of oneself, IMHO. OK, let me rephrase it: It is very Marxist. And, of course, Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto. Stallman's idea is that software author has no rights. He produces something, but it does not belong to him. It belongs to the masses. The "party" has full control over it. The "party" can even change the license in the future to whatever it wants, without the author having any say. In a Stallmanistic society the programmer has the duty to write software because he has the ability to do so. He may expect nothing in return. Everyone gives according to his abilities, everyone takes (in theory) according to his needs. That is the basic dictum of Communism. In my home country this was even in the Constitution. Of course, in reality, everyone was expected to give all he could, his needs be damned. That, also, is the reality of Stallmanism. It does not matter that it is intellectual property he talks about. It still boils down to the society as represented by the party owning the property. Of course, Stallman does not decry material property. Doing so would be a tactical mistake because it would make him transparent and he would not have gained the blind following he has now. A note to Rahul: Communism is not about the State having control. It is about the "society" having control. State is irrelevant. In Communist countries the control was with the Communist Party, not with the State. The State was just a puppet in the hands of the party. In most Communist countries the distinction was carefully disguised by making the same person the head of the party and of the State. But on occasion, they were two distinct persons, and it was the party leader that had all control in his hands. A classical example was Czechoslovakia in 1969-1970. After it was invaded by the Soviets and others, they kept President Svoboda in office. But they made Gustav Husak the head of the Party. All power and control was in Husak's hands. Svoboda was a figure head. Once he died, Husak became President while keeping his Party post. This way they were able to restore the semblance of the President having power. But he only had it because he "also" headed the Party. And, by the way, India is not the only country where Communists are elected in and out of office. I have seen the same happen in Italy during my four years there. As long as Communists are not elected to total control of the country, they do not have the means of changing the totality political system. This is why it is important to have and keep alternatives to Stallman's agenda. If his followers ever get the chance to control the total of software development, it will be as hard to reverse it as it was for the people of Communist countries to shed Communism. Adam To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3.0.6.32.20000513180213.00894400>