[ubuntu-us-mi] wtf?!

[Greg Grossmeier]

Sorry about replying to myself, but my buddy and I just had a good IM 
conversation after he read my email.  It is pasted below for your 
(possible) benefit:
-----------

 Pete: okay. here's my slant. you say (and you're right) that the FSF 
is fronted by the "radical wing of the party," so to speak.

 Me: so to speak, yes

 Pete: and you're right. but that's the point of the FSF.
 Pete: let's make a party politics analogy.

 Me: (I should have also added that we do NEED the uber radical wing 
of the party, but not as the official spokespeople)
 Me: and I should have put official in scare quotes right there

 Pete: we need dennis kucinich to keep barack obama honest.

 Me: that is totally correct

 Pete: i don't particularly want a "department of peace," but i'm glad 
he's out there pushing the idea.

 ***Me nods in full agreement

 Pete: even my favorite punching bag, peta. i think they're scum. but 
they're scum we need.

 Me: I think the only major difference between this analogy and the 
FLOSS community situation is that Dennis Kucinich does not provide the 
most commonly used tool for the left/progressives.  FSF provides the 
GPL.  Dennis just provides a message, and no one is dependent on 
something he created.

 Pete: that's how free software works. if you don't like it, fork it 
(as cc sort of did, not so much with the content but kind of a "fork 
of the message")

 Me: in a way, right.

 Pete: and that's good.

 Me: but, we are pretty much path-dependent now with the GPL
 Me: and by the very nature of the GPL, it is neigh-impossible to 
switch to another license

 Pete: because although you call the vista campaign "divisive" (and 
you're right), some people are going to react better to that. 
sometimes you need to get in people's faces.
 Pete: sometimes not.
 Pete: but to say that you're doing it right and the FSF is doing it 
wrong is overly simplistic.

 Me: very true
 Me: I like the way that CC promotes itself and its message more than 
how the FSF does the same.

 Pete: i see this at work a lot. all of those approaches have their 
place, with different markets and different people with different 
temperments.

 Me: I was bad when I used a right vs wrong mentality in that email

 Pete: and to me, i think the cc soft-sells a little too much for my 
taste. but at the same time, you reach people that i don't reach.
 ***Me nods
 Pete: (i realize i'm flopping back and forth here with "you" and "me" 
and "fsf" and "cc", but i think you catch my meaning)

 Me: (indeed)

 Pete: i agree that kucinich was a poor choice for that analogy, btw.
 Pete: one more thing on this topic. what cc does would not be 
happening without the fsf taking a hardline in the beginning.

 Me: Oh, most definitely.  When Creative Commons first started, there 
was a clear and stated relationship between it and the FSF
 Me: by "relationship" I mean "influence/inspiration" not 
"endorsement"

 Pete: much better analogy: the civil rights movement.

 Me: and analogies are, practically by definition, made with poor 
choices :)

 Pete: as we have discussed at length many times.

 Me: hmmmm *pondering that analogy for a minute*

 Pete: without the hard line set by the nation of islam and malcom x, 
all the sit-ins in the world do nothing. as we learned during the iraq 
war. all marches, nothing to back it up, and we achieved precisely 
dick.

 Me: Malcom X ~= RMS, MLK ~= CC      (valid comparison?)

 Pete: sure, as long as we're butchering history, i guess :)

 Me: haha

 Pete: yeah, i'm not gonna reply to that thread, but you can certainly 
post this.

 Me: cool