Re: Should we take steps to reduce russian access to Free Software?> the headache of it all dissolves in forgiveness

[gregor]

   dear mr rms,

   i will always and more than gladly think, before answering any letter
   that you send me. it is always an honour.

   let me not even begin, by putting some caveats first:

   as for all the spelling mistakes, please bear with them(you might
   specially notice how gladly i dont use capital letters, i never knew
   where to put comas, must be sort of personal coma koma, etc.).  and the
   clumsines of my english must be known by now. as for the humor, i
   realize mine is not funny for most people, but i know surrelly of one,
   who is always laughing at them. those jokes are for him.

   be that thinking even harmfull to me, i will do it. you my kind sir,
   are a treasure, time will only tell the greatness of.

   "pa pojdimo lepo po vrsti, kot so tudi hiše v trsti" is what we would
   say for such an occasion (its never late to start learning another
   language, my mothers tonge is beautiful)

   firstly i thought of doing the positive logical approach, that is to
   say, i shall write a letter of answer to Jaocob H., the way i imagine
   it would and should be written (outreach, communications, emphasis).
   for the difference of negative approach, where i go and try to
   dismantle or rather go against(hence negative aproach) - one by one -
   Devins statments, claims, toughs etc., which i will do in a second
   part.

   then in the third part, i shall try answering your questions.

   is also why i use word: logical swordfigt - for me  it connotates a
   negative logic approach dialog, and is also why i claim headaches for
   thinking. i dont like to fight, gives head&heart ache.

   so here goes nothing (like in that monthypython meanning of life, where
   the french waiter takes us to see "it", only to dismiss us in the end)

   so what was rude? you ask. the logic of it all. it hurt my logic.
   rudeness which was to hurt my feelings of ratio, strange huh? the sheer
   prepostorous reassoning behind it all. so i go now dismantle that poor
   selection of wordings (watch the head boy) /*let me first find that
   letter ... here it is ...

   ###

On 2/24/22 03:04, Jacob Hrbek wrote:

Today russian forces invaded ukraine and started an unprovoked war
with free software being used across russia and in the government
thus playing a major role in russia's war capabilities.

What the FSF is taking action on immediately is abiding economic
sanctions against Russia. This effects distribution of shop orders and
membership cards, for example.

   ###

   POSITIVE: my dear mr. Jacob H., (i already see, it will be hard for me
   to drop the usual cinisizm i would personally use, i would say here
   something like --- wtf, go read the 4 freedoms, meditate on it and come
   back. but as an ourtreach comm, it could be something like:) your claim
   in the first statement is full of very opinioneated statements,  (aaah,
   see, thats not good altough they all are just that)
   try nr.2 dear mr jacob H., the sentiments you express are your personal
   ones. please refrain from expressing them on this list, because they
   are very very contraversial, and we dont want nor need to involve
   ourselves and our organisation in them contraversies. i might share
   them, we all might (or none), but it is completelly out of the scope of
   this list, also, let me remind you, that FSF is not a political
   organization. so, rude as it may sound, lets not talk politics here,
   shall  we.

   try3: dear mr J.H., there is always much contraversies, let alone
   tragedies, around us all. i can see your emotional reaction and can
   appreciate it as such, but, FSF is not, can not and shall not be part
   of any such controversies let alone worse. i would also like to remind
   you, that going by emotions in this case is just worsening the
   situation, so please, think better of it.

   NEGATIVE:

   when Devin answers with: " 'what' the FSF ... ", that 'what' makes me
   think that there is something going on, something extraordinare (for
   the difference of uganda, tunguzija and slovenija, where daily people
   suffer) but lets see, what comes next: "... is taking action on
   immediately" , so there is active  immediate response, by which i
   imagine some people doing the research on how to best fullfill  " ...
   is abiding economic sanctions against Russia ..." oh, is not that bad,
   still shows to me there is an active engagement in abiding them
   sanctions, and that, as much as i dont like(active engagement), must be
   done.

   but then, is there the same amount of active engagemant on all the
   other issues? and that is no trivial question, for there might be
   monsanto using free software for spraying prohibited neonicotins, or
   ... and then we come to the problem of arbitrirary choosing as best as
   we can, out of zillion unjustices, which ones we will fight against.
   monsanto? terrorists? bad jokes? so who will decide - Freud or Jung?
   who's the arbiter. very Pandoraboxical you see. it's a trap.

   so i wonder what would this selective active engagement in our case
   mean. and i come to the conclusion, that it is a political stance. its
   active and selective, what more can you do as a solder taking sides.

   to add. there is a complete lack of correcting Jacob in boldness to put
   forward his emotional political assumptions, thus opening the pandoras
   box of, well you know, everything flew out, all we are left with now is
   hope.

   now i am to elaborate how come, that Jacobs statement is but
   propaganda, at best just his opinion. but i will not. it is my firm
   opinion that it is. but i also share another opinion, which is: it is
   very bad to share opinions like they were apples, among so many
   strangers in so short a space, they're bound to land rotten. lets just
   stick each to our own rotten apple (opinion).

   or as g.marx said: i have this principle, if you dont like it, well, i
   have others.

   but jokes aside, it's not about Jacobs opinions, i could go fence more
   on that, but why. it's just to point out - again - that the answer or
   rather the lack of it, shows complete support of emotionally charged
   jacobs opinion (the stupiditi of a sentence: "with free software being
   used across russia and in the government." would be so easilly
   destroyed i am ashamed even to think of words. the headache of it all.
   and mind you, i think i am doing us all a big favor, not to mention
   more about that)

   ### now for the second part, the horror of it

Should we and can we take steps to prevent/reduce russia's access to
our software?

We are working within the legal frameworks of this evolving situation,
and will seek legal advice when necessary. The details are complex
given the very nature of free (as in freedom) software.

In short, the FSF is taking the situation seriously. Thank you for
raising the point.

   ###

   positive:

   take 1: there is no such thing as reducing access in them 4 freedoms.
   some politenenss about how to best understand 4 freedoms maybe a link
   or two (so for all them nubs, not to blunder stupidities)

   nr.2: your statement again shows more emotions than logic. by the 4
   freedoms we shall live, whitout, we are gonners

   "v tretje gre rado" - many a times, there is this third take that i
   make good.

   3: The answer to your question is thankfully very simple. we should not
   and would not want to. for the 4 freedoms are beyond the petty politics
   of the day.

   /* and some conclusion saying that nobody better touch this subject
   even with a stick ... "da se nebi niti s palico dotaknil tega dreka",
   of course polite

   negative:

   unless its a royal We, there are as i suspected earlier, at least 2!
   persons working selectivelly activelly, "within a legal frameworks",
   that sounds ok, but for the obvious abovementioned selectivness. (no
   new argument here), "will seek ..." ok, ok. again (old argument), for
   how many other things were deemed necessary, and who chooses it. (same
   argument used above)

   "details are complex" ... maybe, them sanctions every day different,
   but the four freedoms are not complex. so what coplexness is he on
   about i wonder. and i conclude, that he is talking about his not
   understanding the beauty of simplicity that the four freedoms gospel
   exhibits. for if he would, he would dismiss Jacobs question about
   "prevent/reduce" in the first place. and there are at least 2 persons
   in FSF (i doubt Devin spends royal with cheese) actively doing
   something, against 4 freedoms is what i conclude.

   "taking situation seriously" i think i dismantled this twice already.

   "thank you for raising the point". this alone statement could be fine,
   but in the context, is what i blurred in my rude letter, as if he (and
   at least one more person) was hardly waiting to add his emotions to the
   "pandoras  spectre flying circus", hence negativelly impact on the
   whole "war in question" happenings (don't know how better to shortly
   put it), dragging FSF in that dark place where only hope survives.

   also and again - no correcting jacobs misimpretation of the four
   freedoms  alone is bad. but then, when Jacob claims the software "our
   software". is there no decency left? yes sure, i am rude and undecent.
   but nothing surpasses that apropriatory statement "our software". are
   russians not human?

   ###

   now to answer your questions (as best as i can, and will gladly try to
   shine more light on the obscurities, if asked):

   why rude you ask. it hurt my sense of logic. instead of stopping the
   hate, lowering emotional charge, there is warmongering shouting(am not
   thinking in english now, so translation of my thoughts is clumsilly
   direct). and i tought something like that could not happen in FSF. i
   find it very rude to be calling civilians to go to war. i find it very
   very rude to be coming from FSF.

   when i say "and signed with fsf credentials" my meanning is: he is
   representing an official stance "glede tega vprašanja" on this subject.
   and if that is so (for which i doubted at that time), i am now
   dumbfounded to realize, that fsf is a political front. or am i wrong?

   when you say:
His message was political in the sense that it responded to a
political question about a political situation.  That's natural.

   firstly, i am sadened to see you defend his position. my sentiment
   namely is: no political debate or expressing ones political opinion is
   valid in fsf (unless pertaining to free software). so i don't see why
   you needed to dvelve into this.

   surelly, everithing is political. greek for non-political person is
   i-diotes (nowadays we use it differently :). but there are so many
   petty politics, i don't see this war (don't get me wrong, there is no
   petty war, ever been) as being any different. for, i could send a mail
   a day to libreplanet about some or other injustice, claiming complete
   knowledge of it and demanding action.
I don't know what "politično angažiran" means.  The words "politically
motivated" are vague; if you're trying to hint at something, I don't
know what it is.  It would be a mistake to try to guess!

   his letter is in my opinion polittically motivated. he is taking a
   stand in a war which he is no part of. and even if he were, that should
   be his personal view and shouldnt come even close to fsf. why recruting
   soldiers for a war you never been even close to, and thinking that
   everything you get out of that box, called tv is truth. you might be
   recruting murderes of civilians, in the case your tv lied to you. are
   you willing to take that risk? not to mention, most of you never been
   to war. well i have. and it was fought by that same type of people you
   are demonstrating now to be. warmongers from "other continents" (is
   more to that, but the heartache of it). and propaganda. and then my
   people died. (am criying now remembering, but thats all good)

   the rest of your letter i think has no questions in it, so i shall
   conclude with:

   i am always willing to accept any and all apologies, and offer mine
   when i fell i did wrong. what, but flowers we are, coloring our way,
   closer and closer to the sun.

   and forgivness is the basis of my "religion", so i am so very glad that
   you've ended your letter with it

   there will always be a huge room for you in my heart, dear mr rms

   yt

   g

   On 1. 03. 22 05:24, Richard Stallman wrote:

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

  > the reasson for me being rude is, that i find the letter of Devin U. so
  > very rude.

I have to say that I don't see anything rude in it, not even slightly.
It doesn't insult anyone, or criticize anyone.  There is no anger in
it.  Is it possible you've misunderstood the meaning of "rude"?

  > he wanted to know, i guess a valid question (if you dont know
  > that FSF is not a political organization)

Yes, it was a valid question.  Some people know enough about the FSF
to see what the answer would be.  But some people don't know,
so they will want to ask.

  > but the answer that i read is quite "politično angažiran" (translate
  > from slovene - politically motivated?). and signed with FSF credentials!

Devin is on the FSF staff, and his message says so.  I don't see
anything strange about that.

His message was political in the sense that it responded to a
political question about a political situation.  That's natural.

I don't know what "politično angažiran" means.  The words "politically
motivated" are vague; if you're trying to hint at something, I don't
know what it is.  It would be a mistake to try to guess!

I see you accused Devin of some sort of dishonesty or wrongdoing, but
that makes no sense to me.  I don't see any dishonesty or wrongdoing
in his message.  So I appreciate your apologizing for that.

Devin's message did have an imperfection: it was abstract and left
unanswered some practical questions about what the FSF would do.  I
hope my message answered those questions.  But that's not wrongdoing,
it's just an imperfection.  None of us is perfect, we can only do our
best.  Let's forgive each other.