28 Apr
2002
28 Apr
'02
3:35 a.m.
On Sat, 27 Apr 2002, James B. DiGriz wrote:
P.S. Even those who disagree vehemently with Stallman respect his
integrity, even if it's hard for some of them to understand his
arguments (Not his fault, they include concepts difficult for some to
grasp, which may be a blessing, all things considered, when you think
about it.) You can't say he hasn't put his money where his mouth is.
I don't believe that anyone who works with any unix fails to recognise
& respect Stallman's work, or his personal integrity. That includes me.
I have read his manifesto, I've read many of his interviews and
editorials, and of course I've read the General Public License. I
disagree with one single contention - his insistence that Linux should
be named after his brainchild.
The notion that disagreement with the RMS party line denotes a failure
to understand Stallman's arguments, and the principles behind them,
doesn't follow.
The vehemence of your replies, your over-generalization of my remarks
and my viewpoint, and your implication that anyone who disagrees with
Richard M. Stallman simply can't grasp his concepts, are together a
perfect demonstration of what I find distasteful in GNU bigotry. The
"GNU Movement" has become a cult. Its members are unable to abide any
view of its goals or its leader that doesn't hew strictly to the party
line. To raise any question or objection to _any_ of RMS's views,
actions, or demands, invites accusations of ingratitude and/or
ignorance, at the very least.
In other words, in action if not in principle, the GNU model is
"Freedom of Information", but _not_ "Freedom of Opinion". Once
again,
"Bah!"
Doc