Talk:Richard Stallman/Archive 10

Attacked by Ninjas?
I think that the whole ninja attack at Yale should be included. Not entirely sure if its noteworthy, but I'm curious as to wether or not it should be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.119.225.12 (talk) 20:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

invention of Gravmass
I question the statement Stallman invented Gravmass. Even if it is a legitimate quotation - if my suspicion that the claim itself is false is correct then the factual error should be noted if the quotation is used. My impression is that Robert Forward, gravitational physicist and SF author, invented Gravmass. It is definitely in one of his books and I don't remember any attribution. Possibly Forward lifted it from Stallman without attribution or possibly the attribution was there and I've forgotten it but I doubt it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.73.116.36 (talk) 06:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

rms says that James Hogan might have conceived the idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alaukikyo (talk • contribs) 11:28, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

copyleft
I don't think he invented copyleft. I saw a picture of someone else who used the term not as leftist but as the opposite of right, meaning not copyrighted. I can't find the picture at the moment, but maybe someone else has heard of this old program. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frenzyface (talk • contribs) 23:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * In 1984 or 1985, Don Hopkins (a very imaginative fellow) mailed me a letter. On the envelope he had written several amusing sayings, including this :one:
 * “Copyleft—all rights reversed.” I used the word “copyleft” to name the distributionconcept I was developing at the time. Source: http://www.gnu.org/gnu/thegnuproject.html Not proof of course, but useful nonentheless. - MeatyDoughnut (talk) 14:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.83.56.200 (talk) 11:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Ludicrous Claims

 * "Stallman recommends not owning a mobile phone,[69] as he believes the tracking of cell phones creates harmful privacy issues.[70]  Also, Stallman avoids use of a key card to enter the building where his office is.[71]  Such a system would track doors entered and times. For personal reasons, he does not actively browse the web from his computer; rather, he uses wget  and reads the fetched pages from his e-mail mailbox.[70]"

Can someone verify or present additional sources for these absurd claims? Some of the sources seem either falsified, out-of-context or just purely comical in nature. I find it hard to believe these were anything but bad jokes.76.67.111.164 (talk) 22:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Why do you think that everybody should have the same opinion as you have about cell phones, privacy, and internet browsing? If you have a problem with a source remove it, sources need to be reliable, but only because you don't find that plausible is not a good reason to question a source. man with one red shoe 23:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Is it good reason to question a source if it's a he-said she-said from "informationweekly.com"? It's not that I find the quote implausible, but I do find it so that the article passes it off as his opinion, when in fact it should merely quote him as saying so (if that is the case). Saying something for the sake of audience entertainment and adopting it as a personal mantra are often confused, but separate ideas. For that reason I feel many Wikipedia users would be more comfortable knowing this came from a reputable source or sources 76.67.111.164 (talk) 05:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

About Manchester Talk Reference
This is a very minor thing. I recently added a link to the Manchester talk given by Stallman. Please note that I didn't listen to the lecture to verity the claim made in the text. This probably should be a TODO item of sorts. --Rantir (talk) 04:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Controversies
Stallman needs a controversy or criticism section. I can recall disputes with the OSI and Torvalds over open source vs free software over open source vs free software. We should include some of the controversies, he has stirred up like [],[],[],[]. 97.77.55.38 (talk) 07:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree, there are a lot of controversies and criticisms of him, so they are definitely worth adding. The GNU/Linux dispute is a big one. There are a lot of people and organizations that don't like him, and their points should be presented. If well done, this would make the article more neutral. Wingtipvortex (talk) 17:02, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * As long as they are encyclopedic (most controversies are not of encyclopedic nature anyway) and if they come from reliable sources, we shouldn't post here any criticism that appears in blogs... Also, I think that having a separate "Controversies" section attracts poor contributions and POV edits. Also this should not be used as a vehicle for people who disagree with his ideas. man with one red shoe 19:08, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed a critcism section is needed. I mean the guy claims he likes "freedom" yet buys a computer designed and built China. Talk about hypocrisy. Gateman1997 (talk) 06:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Disagree. As above poster said, a separate "Controversies" section attracts poor contributions and POV edits. Criticism, or for that matter pure praise, should be worked into the article where they are relevant and only if there is reliable secondary sources. Most opinions (good or bad) made about a public person can never be added to wikipedia articles simply because the only sources that exist is primary sources of a person describing his or her personal opinion on the matter. This is a good thing. Articles on politicians would be impossible to read if half of it would be people who say "we like this person", and half with "we do not like this person". It is better, as described by Wikipedia policy, to simply describe what is and then let the reader form his own opinion on the matter of good or bad.Belorn (talk) 11:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, per WP:CRIT: Avoid sections and articles focusing on "criticisms" or "controversies". That's a pretty clear message. -- man with one red shoe 13:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The only thing that essay says, is that controversy sections may lead to POV edits. If that doesn't happen, then it's not a problem. Many articles have controversy sections. There's nothing wrong with them. If there is a lot of controversy surrounding him, then there should be a section on it. --WikiDonn (talk) 19:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

New photo
The new photo is recent, but not as high-quality as the previous one. I suggest restoring the photo to the old one. I mean great, this photo is recent, but it doesn't provide any better quality to the article.--OsamaK 02:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

"Fear"
I inserted the following sentence:


 * Stallman surprised others by refusing to participate in the Putnam Competition, however, due to his fear and dislike of head-to-head competition.

Lentower (I am aware of his long personal/professional connection with Stallman) reverted this, however, commenting "rm not-notable blp issued sentence".

Two issues:


 * Is Stallman's refusal to participate in Putnam notable? I say yes because it indeed is very surprising for a top performer in Math 55&mdash;as Stallman was&mdash;to not do so. In turn, this leads to the next point...
 * Is there a BLP issue? I don't see how. Chapter 4 of the William biography is very clear that Stallman's fear and dislike of competing with others was the reason:

"Surprised that Stallman, the best student in the class, had passed on the test, Breidbart says he and a fellow classmate cornered him in the dining common and demanded an explanation. "He said he was afraid of not doing well," Breidbart recalls.

Breidbart and the friend quickly wrote down a few problems from memory and gave them to Stallman. "He solved all of them," Breidbart says, "leading me to conclude that by not doing well, he either meant coming in second or getting something wrong."

Stallman remembers the episode a bit differently. "I remember that they did bring me the questions and it's possible that I solved one of them, but I'm pretty sure I didn't solve them all," he says. Nevertheless, Stallman agrees with Breidbart's recollection that fear was the primary reason for not taking the test. Despite a demonstrated willingness to point out the intellectual weaknesses of his peers and professors in the classroom, Stallman hated the notion of head-to-head competition.

"It's the same reason I never liked chess," says Stallman. "Whenever I'd play, I would become so consumed by the fear of making a single mistake that I would start making stupid mistakes very early in the game. The fear became a self-fulfilling prophecy.""

The incident seems to be illustrative of important aspects of Stallman's personality, which are relevant to a biographical article. Ylee (talk) 16:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I severed my connection with Stallman in 1997. Even when I volunteered with him, we had significant differences.  As a WP editor, I want to see the encyclopedia's guidelines followed, with the articles well-written, not burdened with trivia and inconsequential details.
 * At that time, Stallman had already discovered the AI Lab, and was much more deeply into programming and system design (white hat hacking), that he was involved at Harvard. He put in the time necessary to graduate magna cum laude, but his heart was down at MIT, as were more than half his waking hours.
 * You have not made a case, that this is illustrative of important aspects of Stallman's personality. To do that, would take more examples.
 * This happened when Stallman was still maturing as a human being. To include it without evidence that it is still the case, pushes BLP.  It implies that fear was then, and remains a major motivation for Stallman.
 * Sam Williams' book has many problems, and needs to be handled with care as a reliable source. He was more interested in writing a book that would sell, than one that was good biography. I hope he isn't doing significant editing here on WP, unless his goals in writing have changed
 * With all these problems, and the fact that this sentence adds very little to the article, it should remain deleted. Lentower (talk) 21:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

"Quotations" section
Hello Wikipedians. Ok, I made an edit to the article removing the tags Template:Trivia and Template:Quote farm from the "Quotations" section and I think I ought to explain why here on the talk page so this doesn't devolve into an editwar or whatever.
 * I removed the Trivia tag because the quotes aren't trivial; they have a unique common theme, that being the philosophical beliefs of the article's subject (who is, after all, best known for his philosophical beliefs) and they are therefore relevant to the subject of the article.
 * I removed the Quote farm tag because there are only four quotes present and though the template links to the page WP:QUOTE which advocates that users "Do not insert any number of quotations in a stand-alone quote section," WP:QUOTE is merely an Essay, not a policy and therefore should be treated as such. Four (apparently representative) quotes in an article whose subject appears to live to give quotes      are surely not "overuse of quotations," by any good standard.
 * I gave citations for the two quotes which were missing them. 207.65.109.10 (talk) 06:23, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for adding the two citations.
 * I assume you mean well. Since you edited under an IP address, not a registered account, it's hard to verify that you are an inexperienced editor here on Wikipedia. But your deletion of these two edit boxes, and the arguments you made above, as well as the contribution history on your IP address, indicate that you are.
 * These quotations do not add anything encyclopedic to the article, that is not already stated. If you feel they do, they should be moved into the descriptive text.  Otherwise, they should either be deleted, or moved to http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman. Which is what the two boxes together instruct.
 * Good encyclopedic writing does not involve adding more and more to an article. It does involve continual refinement and tightening of an article to the 'gems' that quickly and effectively communicates about the article's subject. WP articles are not meant to be exhaustive or comprehensive. That's achieved by providing the reader with links to quality reliable sources, and providing links to other references.
 * The Wikipedia Project some years ago, decided that quotations in articles should be included carefully, and only when they add to the encyclopedic quality of the article. It also recognized that lists of quotations were something of value to our readers, and set up the Wikiquote project for that purpose. A list of Stallman's quotes is over there, and a link to those quotes is in the article here. Lentower (talk) 11:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

He is an atheist so having jewish in Ethnicity is misleading
he is an atheist so having jewish in ethnicity is a bit misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alaukikyo (talk • contribs) 07:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Aren't you confusing ethnicity with religion? If it's confusing, it's because it's a confusing issue.   C üRly T üRkey  Talk Contribs 07:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

no, its not! im jewish and israeli, my grand parents ere holocaust survivers, and i dont belive in anything. im still jewish. most of the jews are seculars. please learn the subject before youre talking. יניבפור (talk) 17:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Definitely not misleading. You'll find most famous Jews outside of Israel are atheist, or at least secular. Inverse Hypercube  18:07, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Currently, the Infobox has his Religion as Atheist, and his Ethnicity as Jewish, which seems just right to me. The Infobox coders enforce the display order. I haven't looked into why, or if it can easily be overridden.

יניבפור (talk): From what I can see, some jews are secular. Not all that important on a Talk page, but quite important in an article's text, and should have RS citations backing it up in an article. Lentower (talk) 18:13, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Not to get into this infinite topic - but surely you can call yourself Jewish without labelling everybody else who happens to have Jewish descent automatically as "Jewish" or "Jews"? If ethnicity is about culture, then this amounts to presuming that descent determines culture. If ethnicity is about classifying people by bloodlines, then, well, does such a categorisation really belong here?

Note the footnote used as a reference, when called "Jewish" (and pressed slightly) by an interviewer, he states precisely: "I am an atheist but of Jewish ancestry." It would seem to be a relevant nuance. Feketekave (talk) 10:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Whether most or only a few Jews are secular isn't really relevant. Stallman self-identified as having Jewish ancestry, and as being an atheist. Nuanced, yes, but also referenced. The article doesn't seem misleading to me, as ethnicity is not necessarily about culture, especially in the United States. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * - Stallman made a nuanced statement in reply to a journalist who defined him as Jewish. This is not the same sort of self-identification as going around with a poster-board saying "I'm Jewish". That aside, what is being stated, namely, a blunt category, is not the same as what is being referenced.


 * We are all aware that some people use "ethnicity" to mean descent. The matter here is twofold: (a) this is not a universal usage; (b) this may be an unencyclopaedic usage, especially for living individuals (what right do we have to classify and define people according to ancestry?) This is a controversy we can nicely sidestep, not by saying "Ethnicity: Not Jewish" (or: Not Italian, Not Gypsy, etc.) but by not having that entry in the infobox in the first place. (It is still a fairly uncommon entry.) Feketekave (talk) 12:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

File:FSF-Logo.svg Nominated for Deletion
Oh the irony! Tom Pippens (talk) 11:29, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * This was resolved on 24 August 2011 with the decision of keeping the image.Belorn (talk) 14:57, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

"I’m not glad he’s dead, but I’m glad he’s gone"
This is the second time I delete a section on this subject.

This primary source: "Steve Jobs, the pioneer of the computer as a jail made cool, designed to sever fools from their freedom, has died.

As Chicago Mayor Harold Washington said of the corrupt former Mayor Daley, "I'm not glad he's dead, but I'm glad he's gone." Nobody deserves to have to die - not Jobs, not Mr. Bill, not even people guilty of bigger evils than theirs. But we all deserve the end of Jobs' malign influence on people's computing.

Unfortunately, that influence continues despite his absence. We can only hope his successors, as they attempt to carry on his legacy, will be less effective."

- Richard Stallman

resulted in: "Stallman have showed significant dismay towards Proprietary software leaders such as Apple's Steve Jobs and Microsoft's Bill Gates. Free software ideas have led to harsh statements, such is the case following Steve Jobs' death, where Stallman noted: “I’m not glad he’s dead, but I’m glad he’s gone.”"

This is about as clear attempt to WP:OR you get in Wikipedia, including the use of WP:WEASELWORDS and misquotation. First off, try find a reliable third party source. If not, and you are going to use this primary source, extreme caution is advised: Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves (WP:RS). At the moment, I would simply wait and see if a third party source picks this up, or alternative quote the whole thing verbatim.Belorn (talk) 17:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You could argue he did not said it in his own words, but anyone honest enough will at least admit he said that in a "indirect way". It is also clear from the quote Stallman considers Steve Jobs guilty of "evils", therefore the obvious connection implying "he his glad" because one "evil enemy" is no longer here. Regarding sources, we fortunately have many, including this one from forbes saying Stallman lacks taste, this zdnet article calls it essentially one of the "craziest things I’ve come across"; gizmodo reports Strange, Misguided Man "Glad" Steve Jobs Not Around Anymore; IBM Times reports Stallman's words were grossly inappropriate; Also Mashable reports that Stallman went "too far". There is a lot more coverage, but this is just the ones considered the most "reliable". --Jerebin (talk) 01:04, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * There is many different interpretations, and everyone, including each and every reader must be allowed to make his own. This is the essence and soul of most I can read in WP:OR and WP:RS. Thus, talking about the sources. Forbes is a new organization, but the article you linked looks like a Editorial commentary, or opinion by the writer Brian Caulfield. The gizmodo article is a blog, and by explicit statement in WP:SPS, we can not use it in a article about a living person. IBM Times article looks good in parts, so long we follow WP:BLP. To empathize: BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. Mashable article is a Editorial commentary, or opinion by its author (say's so explicitly). So to sum up, IBM Times article is the only article I think could be used at all, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone(WP:BLP). Belorn (talk) 02:44, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Subject got slashdoted, and they use a other soure, one I would say is a bit better than the IBM times article since it uses a more dispassionate tone of reporting. LATimes article.Belorn (talk) 09:58, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * We can remove the whole original research and loaded words, but we could include a paragraph where we quote him, for example this part: "[...] we all deserve the end of Jobs' malign influence on people's computing." and quote some other people that say about him that he has strong opinions or such (not that hard to find). That opinion about Jobs is clearly not mainstream... man with one red shoe 01:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Feel free to include the statement verbatim, its the most simplistic way to let the reader make his own opinion about the matter. As for peoples personal opinion, I would avoid them if the person making them is not directly relevant to the article. Belorn (talk) 02:44, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm glad with the change you made, it's better to let him speak for himself without characterizing what he said. man with one red shoe 16:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Belorn, I disagree with your assessment of the sources: The forbes article might be opinion, but it's not a random blog opinion, in fact, it's an article published on the official website of a widely very credible news organization. If we take your reasoning to an extreme, nothing can be criticized on wikipedia, no matter how reliable sources are, because criticism, by its very definition, is "opinion". Regarding Gizmodo being a blog, and therefore not considered a reliable source, I consider it a wrong generalization of what the policy says: "self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources." Being a blog does not automatically make the source not acceptable, and Gizmodo is generally considered a reliable source and used in many wikipedia articles. To be clear, I find arguments like "I's a blog, therefore not a reliable source" as baseless as "I's a website, therefore not a reliable source" and I hope people on wikipedia realize that. I have expanded the topic, since I believe wikipedia should not ommit the reactions to Mr. Stallman comments. I also tried to follow every policy, in particular NPOV and BLP, but of couse things can be always improved. --Jerebin (talk) 09:43, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I did not say they were random blog opinions, but rather as it is described in WP:NEWSORG: Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces are reliable for attributed statements as to the opinion of the author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. It mean if I am allowed to speculate, that you can use them, but they need to correctly attribute, and by WP:BLPPRIMARY, used with extreme care since they are then primary sources. Its not a black and white rule that forbids everything. That said, it does mean there should be a good reason if one include them, like the author being authoritative on the subject matter.Belorn (talk) 01:32, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't get why is this notable enough to be included in the article. Stallman has said many controversial things over the time and they always have plenty of commentary both in support and against, and it is not proper for the article to include a whole list of them. It also seems to have PoV the list of negative reactions seems to outweigh the length of the quote.  I suggest this section to be removed for lack of notability.

190.103.73.227 (talk) 02:57, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I totally agree that it has been blown totally out of proportion, but at the same time, it has garnered a lot of press (and not just logs and forums), and continues to be a sticking point for an awful lot of people. I see it brought up pretty much every time Stallman gets mentioned these days.  Whatever our personal opinions are on it, it's certainly "notable" as per the guidelines.   C üRly T üRkey  Talk Contribs 04:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I would pref to remove all the opinions from primary source (LA times, mashable, forbes, gizmod, IBTimes, ZDNet), and just keep the one that is a secondary sources (article about Eric Raymonds comment and summery of the controversy). Primary sources should not really be used if possible (see above posts), and I do not see how those articles with primary sources actually give anything distinctively new to the article. Please read the source before reverting. Addtionally, in the primary source that theregister article talks about, raymond say: "Certainly RMS’s remarks were rude, intemperate, and ill-timed". If we are to add any primary sources, atleast Raymond opinion is better to use than a random author's personal opinion. could that be a middle-ground option if the current text isnt enough?Belorn (talk) 13:36, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: WP:DUST. Six weeks later, no one cares about this.  (I'm neither for it or against it.  I think it was well said, and the comments on the Slashdot article are surprisingly uniform in praising him for saying it.  But I'm not sure it deserves a mention.) Gronky (talk) 23:28, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, Wikipedia is not a WP:NEWSPAPER. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

criticisms
This article is unusually devoid of criticisms section.

Stallman is a man of extreme ideas, yet there is little mention of this in any real sense, for example;


 * 1) Stallman's use of the words 'freedom' and 'ethical' - he redefines these words to fit his own philosophical paradigm.
 * 2) Public and inappropriate comments relating to children such as "I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren't voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing." 05 June 2006 stallman.org
 * 3) Practical comparison of Stallmans philosophical 'freedoms' needs to be mentioned - e.g.  E.g. GPL is more restrictive when compared to the BSD licenses and the impacts this has on choice for the end user and the developer.
 * 4) Contradictory Values - Stallman makes many extreme statments and has said that he wished all proprietary software companies fail (Interview given March 2012 Linux Action Show), however his organisation the FSF readily accepts donations from Google, RedHat, Apple, etc...

Stallman is an interesting man but clearly this article has been sanitised. More balance is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.244.131.102 (talk) 09:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * If you know of criticisms published by a reliable third-party sources, or published in articles made by acknowledged experts on the subjects that Stallman's comments lands on, Be bold! and add those.


 * On other hand, you might be convinced that Stallman's ideas are extreme, wrong, and you know the truth!, but for others truths might be different from yours. For example: some consider that the definition of freedom means libre, thus a form of liberty. Others define freedom as "no laws", where anarchism or "lawless" countries is the prime examples of places with total freedom (most freedom, least restrictions). Those that talk about freedom in the form of liberty, do not consider a lawless country to have more freedom, but rather consider those places as lacking freedom because no laws guarantee freedom to the people. Those same people consider laws (a restriction made by the states) a positive force on freedom if they result in more freedom for the people to enjoy. Thus, one man's freedom fighter is one others terrorist, and you are free to prefer a country that is lawless over one with laws than enforce freedom. I on other hand prefer to live in a land with laws that enforce my right to freedom, even if those laws are technically a form of restrictions. I might not have the freedom to kill, maim, or even hit someone in the face, but I am happy to give away those freedom if I in return can enjoy the freedom of not getting killed, maimed or be punched in the face. I call that freedom, even with all the restrictions it include. Belorn (talk) 00:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Belorn's remarks are well-written and add balance to this section.


 * Editing by 220.244.131.102 or anyone is stronger if they read and use key Wikipedia guidelines (including WP:RS) and Wikipedia policies (including WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:OR, and for articles about living people (e.g. Stallman) WP:BLP (which is one reason biographies may appear to be more "sanitized".)). I note that this and other Talk page sections don't adhere to these policies and guidelines, having their own. (BTW, I reformatted 220.244.131.102 list, with the Wikipedia # numbered list markup, and added "'" to the possessives, giving " 's".) Lentower (talk) 15:11, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Stallman seems to me to be very idealistic and true to himself. These 2 are not always in sync, as some people are idealistic in their philosophies but don't live up to them. Stallman does. Have a look at original announcement of the GNU Project, posted by Richard Stallman on September 27, 1983 (link) and check the short section titled "Why I Must Write GNU". This is a statement of his philosophy (from about 30 years ago).
 * Why do I mention this? Idealistic people can often be criticized, but I personally think there is high merit in having a good personal philosophy and sticking with it. That's a statement of my personal view.
 * As far as criticism of Stallman: this does exist and should perhaps be mentioned. Examples are perhaps: 1, 2
 * As always... criticism should always be presented as someone's view, not as absolute truth.
 * Oh and by the way: I don't think the 4 points mentioned right at the top... constitute a good basis from criticism. (We need some sources not a single wikipedian's personal view.) Hnfiurgds (talk) 22:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Specific sources are good, as it makes it possible to discuss things outside just abstract concepts. The first example, is a rather long comment from 2003 by Eric S. Raymond, about a book by Sam Williams's which is a biography of Richard M. Stallman, which include some rather subtle criticism of the book, and ending with the open source vs free software naming issues. There is definitive some implied criticism in there, but it would be rather hard to pull it out and still maintain the context (which is a clear must, as implied criticism pulled out of context is a big no no). Its however very interesting that Raymond described himself as a rival to Stallman, as in recent year, I have not heard him describe himself like that. anyway, the second article by Raymond, posted 2012, is a bit more complex. Its a comment, about someone showing RMS a blog post by Raymond, a blog post that itself was a comment about a comment made forth commenter. Ye.... anyway, the heart of the issue he brings up is that RMS frames his advocacy as a moral argument rather than a pragmatic argument (open source vs free software again). I added this to the article in the best neutral form I could where moral vs pragmatic approach was mentioned. There already exist plenty of material on this subject in articles like open source software, History of free and open-source software, and Alternative terms for free software. How much if anything more should be drawn in here is open for debate, but I would voice caution to put too much in a WP:BLP where a more specific article already exist. One could add a see also link to one or two of them to help readers to find more details about the ideology disagreement between open source and free software. Belorn (talk) 08:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)