[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Woctave-another gui front end

From: Sergei Steshenko
Subject: Re: Woctave-another gui front end
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 16:29:52 -0800 (PST)

----- Original Message -----

> From: Francesco Potortì <address@hidden>
> To: "address@hidden" <address@hidden>
> Cc: 
> Sent: Friday, December 21, 2012 12:55 AM
> Subject: Re: Woctave-another gui front end
> Stephen Montgomery-Smith:
>>>  And by the way, what is this difference between "open source" 
> and 
>>>  "free"?  
> Sergei Steshenko:
>> Restriction/strings attached.
> No, that's a wrong answer.
> What is "open source software" is defined by the Open Source 
> Initiative
> (at <>), while what is "free software" 
> had been
> defined some years earlier by the Free Software Foundation (at
> <>).
> Both definitions are meant to partition the field of software licenses
> into those that comply with the definition and those that do not, and
> provide a reason for creating such a partitioning.
> The partitioning is the same (i.e. software licences that are open
> source are also free and viceversa), but the reasons are somewhat
> specular.
> Those speaking about free software claim that freedom is the purpose,
> and convenience is a nice but not necessary consequence; while those
> speaking abut open source claim that convenience is the purpose, while
> freedom is a nice but non ncesessary consequence.
> -- 
> Francesco Potortì (ricercatore)        Voice:  +39.050.315.3058 (op.2111)
> ISTI - Area della ricerca CNR          Mobile: +39.348.8283.107
> via G. Moruzzi 1, I-56124 Pisa         Skype:  wnlabisti
> (entrance 20, 1st floor, room C71)     Web:
> _______________________________________________

You are completely missing the point.

Maybe you'll get the point reading quite an interesting book - " The Guru 
Papers: Masks Of
Authoritarian Powe" 
Joel Kramer and Diana
Alstad - .

For Russian speakers: .

Luckily, one can find excerpts from the original book online, e.g. :

If an authority not only expects to be obeyed without
question, but either punishes or refuses to deal with those who
do not, that authority is authoritarian.” (p.15)

So, I am making very clear: I do _not_ accept FSF/GNU authority.

I'd rather stick to: :

Truth does not become more true by virtue of the fact
that the entire world agrees with it,
nor less so even if the whole world disagrees with it.

And to: :

Do not consider it proof just because it is written 
in books, for a liar who will deceive with his tongue will not hesitate 
to do the same with his pen.
You must accept the truth from whatever source it comes.

Again, let me explain: it does _not_ matter to me how many Octave developers 
call GPL free - according to my _biological_ pereception of freedom GPL is the 
_least_ free of licenses called free FSF. It does _not_ matter to me what RMS 
and/or EJR say on the matter.

Further from :

It is not at all unusual to be in an authoritarian relationship
and not know it. In fact, knowing it can interfere with surrender.
Any of the following are strong indications of belonging to an
authoritarian group:

1. No deviation from the party line is allowed. Anyone who has
thoughts or feelings contrary to the accepted perspective is made
to feel wrong or bad for having them.

Again, let me explain: I do _not_ follow GPL party line. Neither I did follow 
the CPSU party line. :

Traditional gurus teach what they were taught. Most gurus’
training in dealing with disciples is through example –
watching their own guru. They learn to recognize, reinforce, and
reward surrender, and to negate non-surrender. Aside from the
more tangible rewards, they reinforce devotion with attention
and approval, and punish its lack by withdrawing them. Though
some gurus say that doubts are healthy, they subtly punish them.
Doubt is not the way to get into the inner circle. Believing surrender
is essential for transmitting their teachings, some gurus could
be aware they are manipulating people to surrender, but think
they are doing so ‘for their own good.’ (If this were
in fact true, it would mean that deep truths are only accessible
via an authoritarian mode.) This can not only justify manipulation,
but also justify dissembling in order to eliminate people’s
doubts – all this being done in the name of fostering spiritual

Again, let me explain: I do _not_ surrender to GPL indoctrination. :

People whose power is based on the surrender of others
develop a repertoire of techniques for deflecting and undermining
anything that questions or challenges their status, behavior,
or beliefs. They ridicule or try to confuse people who ask challenging

Again, let me explain: I am sick and tired of the "repertoire of techniques for 
deflecting and undermining
anything that questions or challenges their status, behavior, or beliefs". The 
_very_ typical behavior in this list is ideological indoctrination instead of 
addressing _real_ problems. :

Gurus likewise do many things to ensure that their disciples’
prime emotional allegiance is toward them

- it's so boring to read GPL promotion here exactly as stated above. :

Because of the nature of the relationship which demands total
surrender, gurus do exactly the opposite. They cultivate and reward
transference, for a parental type of authority is at the very
core of the guru’s power over disciples.


The person most at risk of being strangled by the images
demanded by the role of the guru is the guru. This includes the
great danger of emotional isolation. . . At the heart of the ultimate
trap is building and becoming attached to the image of oneself
as having arrived at a state where self-delusion is no longer
possible. This is the most treacherous form of self-delusion and
a veritable breeding ground of hypocrisy and deception. It creates
a feedback-proof system where the guru always needs to be right
and cannot be open to being shown wrong – which is where
learning comes from.

Having said all that I remind that I myself _did_ release some SW under GPL, 
and I do _not_ regret it, and maybe I'll release more in the future.

The reason is that I consider GPL to be a _protectionist_ license. It 
_protects_ me as a developer nominally forbidding closed source ripoffs. That 
is _exactly_ why I choose it.

But I do _not_ try to advertise GPL as free - exactly because it is the _most_ 
user limiting license of FSF approved ones, and presenting it as free would 
contradict my _biological_ perception of freedom and thus would constitute 

And maybe I'll write more on what is _really_ happening in GPL ecosystem.


Yet another _excellent_ example of guru tactics, authoritarianism and 


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]