I see it as self-evidently satirical because RMS wouldn't object to being singled out; he'd object to the license not qualifying under his definition of free software.
(Being absurd and arbitrary, it's also funny in the same way as The Ancient Mystic Society of No Homers was in an early Simpsons episode.)
The license author goes into the reason for the license and his thoughts on RMS in a comment on that blog post:
> It’s not about hating free software. I’m a believer in that; I released my first game for free in 1982. Note that the github thing I put up is essentially totally free (something I would have been restricted from doing, by my employer, up to a year ago).
> I have a personal dislike for RMS and I think that his philosophy of economy is at best naïve and dangerously unworkable. 25 years ago he was exhorting me to quit my job in protest to support some of his politics and he wasn’t pleasant about it. Thus, ABRMS.
> If RMS really wants a miserable little 6502 assembler I can always amend the license. I’m not unreasonable. But he has to ask. :-)
And this license, which I still contend is self-evidently satirical, does nothing to hinder RMS from his views. If anything, it helps maintains RMS' mantle within the software licensing zeitgeist. After all, we're talking about it now.
_Richard Stallman? Richard Stallman! Why's he running dad?
_Because we have to hate him.
_He didn't do anything wrong.
_Because he's the hero Open Source Software deserves, but not the one it needs right now. So we'll hate him. Because he can take it. Because he's not our hero. He's a silent guardian. A watchful protector. RMS.
There are other uses of the word "Free" outside of the GNUniverse. If he wants to call this "free software", he's just as entitled to do so as RMS was when he redefined the term.
He worked at Atari during the 80s. He's debugged programs using a print readout of CPU registers. He has done more work then you. He has worked with the FBI at one point. He knows his code, otherwise Valve wouldn't have hired him.
Reactions are mixed, from "this is hilarious" to "this is awful and childish." Which is pretty much what I intended. More people seem to find it funny than not.
31 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 94.8 ms ] threadImagine if the license chose Bill Gates as the exclusion. Would it seem more satirical to you then? If so, why? What if it were George W Bush?
(Being absurd and arbitrary, it's also funny in the same way as The Ancient Mystic Society of No Homers was in an early Simpsons episode.)
> http://www.dadhacker.com/blog/?p=2106
The license author goes into the reason for the license and his thoughts on RMS in a comment on that blog post:
> It’s not about hating free software. I’m a believer in that; I released my first game for free in 1982. Note that the github thing I put up is essentially totally free (something I would have been restricted from doing, by my employer, up to a year ago).
> I have a personal dislike for RMS and I think that his philosophy of economy is at best naïve and dangerously unworkable. 25 years ago he was exhorting me to quit my job in protest to support some of his politics and he wasn’t pleasant about it. Thus, ABRMS.
> If RMS really wants a miserable little 6502 assembler I can always amend the license. I’m not unreasonable. But he has to ask. :-)
But we all owe RMS because he serves as the radical counterbalance to closed source interests.
Maybe he's a little extreme, but he does well with advocating for that end of the FOSS spectrum.
We need a RMS, whether we like him or collectively agree with his opinions.
But, if you subscribe to the 'any press is good press' mentality, I guess it's a win...
_Because we have to hate him.
_He didn't do anything wrong.
_Because he's the hero Open Source Software deserves, but not the one it needs right now. So we'll hate him. Because he can take it. Because he's not our hero. He's a silent guardian. A watchful protector. RMS.
Jealous much? (;
- Yes, it's satire
- No, I'm not going to amend it
Reactions are mixed, from "this is hilarious" to "this is awful and childish." Which is pretty much what I intended. More people seem to find it funny than not.
I'm happy with dissent.