Talk:Richard Stallman: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
archive old talk
Line 13: Line 13:
{{todo}}
{{todo}}
{{archive box|auto=yes}}
{{archive box|auto=yes}}

==Parents and religious affiliation==
I have deleted a reference to his parents and to their religious affiliation. Putting his parents religious heritage in the first sentence of a biography of a programmer whose work isn't related to his parent's identity or faith clutters up the basic story with less relevant details. If his self-description as an atheist of Jewish heritage merits inclusion, it should probably be included in a section on his overall philosophy. --[[User:Cshirky|Cshirky]] 16:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

:I strongly disagree. I think the ''early biography'' is the perfect place for putting his parents and his early religious beliefs, seeing as they, y'know, are pretty important to his being born and his early development. What section is more fit for putting them in than the early portion of his biography? --[[User talk:Gwern |Gwern]] [[Special:Contributions/Gwern | (contribs)]] 17:03 [[21 February]] [[2007]] (GMT)

* Yeah, Gwern is quite right! Don't forget, either, a brief explanation of the laws of genetics (which played an undoubtedly major role in Stallman being born like he is, and not some other way), or mating habits of young human beings (without which his parents would have never actually come to give birth to him), or medicine and pediatrics (which no doubt shaped the events surrounding his birth), and... why not? if the first paragraph has some space left, add a short overview of national and international politics at the moment of his birth. Gwern, your question of "where else to put them" is a [[Fallacy of many questions|loaded question]], because it implies it has to be put somewhere. Believe it or not, sometimes religious affiliation of parents can be irrelevant for a biography. Moreover, Cshirky already answered that question: he proposes to mention it in a section about his philosophy. — [[User:Isilanes|Isilanes]] 14:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

::You think the names of his parents should be put in the philosophy section? I suspect you are committing the fallacy of misinterpretation... --[[User talk:Gwern |Gwern]] [[Special:Contributions/Gwern | (contribs)]] 23:32 [[22 February]] [[2007]] (GMT)

::* I couldn't find this "fallacy of misinterpretation", but maybe you are accusing me of using a [[strawman argument]]. This is, namely, the fallacy you use when implying I mean to move the mention to Stallman's parents' names to the philosophy section, when what I mean is that any mention to his or his parents' '''religious beliefs''' should be moved there, if included at all. — [[User:Isilanes|Isilanes]] 09:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

::::Yes; when someone obnoxiously starts to throw around fallacies, I like to make up names so they might understand how annoying it is. I still don't see how mention of how his parents raised him (which is to say, in what religion) is not relevant for the biography section and should be lumped in with his current beliefs; one is historical data on his youth, and the other is more current and general. --[[User talk:Gwern |Gwern]] [[Special:Contributions/Gwern | (contribs)]] 18:19 [[23 February]] [[2007]] (GMT)

::::* First, I didn't ''"throw around fallacies"'', but rather accusations of using fallacies, which you didn't disprove. Second, I didn't make the accusations to annoy you (which I'd rather not to, believe me), but to point out the invalidity of your arguments. Third, I didn't make up the names or definitions of the fallacies I mention... I even give wikilinks so anyone can see if they apply to your speech. Don't worry, if they do not apply, people will see it, and I will be considered the dumbass I probably am. About the actual subject of the discussion, I think I can't contribute much more than my (already stated) opinion. However, if people agree with Gwern, I'll consider it perfectly well, too. — [[User:Isilanes|Isilanes]] 23:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

== Someone launched [[WP:WPFS|WikiProject Free Software]] ==

[[WP:WPFS|WikiProject Free Software]] has been set up. It has many people listing themselves as participants, but it seems to still need some leadership and some action to develop the project and to build momentum. Some people from here might be able to help. Suggestions can be found (and made) on [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Free_Software]]. [[User:Gronky|Gronky]] 15:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

== unbalanced ==

This must be one of the least balanced articles on wikipedia.

Not even a trace of negative, other views of how things can be ? Come on, let's be open to balancing and including the negative just as well as the positive.


His (GNU) isn't the only religion to follow ...
[[User:213.118.142.27|213.118.142.27]] 23:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
::Be bold - find the reliable sources that have criticism of Stallman and add them in. [[User:Ttiotsw|Ttiotsw]] 06:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

== His "tone deaf" personality ==

:''His best-known original composition, the Free Software Song, has attracted praise from his admirers as well as derision from those who consider it emblematic of what they consider to be his inflexible, tone-deaf personality.''

Can someone rephrase this? What is a "tone-deaf personality"? I guess it's meaningless and the author was just strainging to make a music pun. Great for a blog entry. Useless for an encyclopedia. How is a song emblematic of an inflexible personality? [[User:Gronky|Gronky]] 10:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
::How is a song emblematic of RMS's personality? It's not! I propose that we remove that section. Sounds petty, coming from an encyclopedia with as much calibur and impact as Wikipedia. [[User:Dkrogers|Dylan Knight Rogers]] 00:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

== Terminology section needs fixing: proposal ==

The terminology section is growing and growing and it's just a reprint of the "Words to avoid" webpage. IMO, it would be better to go back to listing the main three terms that Richard dwells on (free software, GNU/Linux, intellectual property), and then a discussion of the commonalities between all the terms that he dislikes - why those terms? What're the trends? The goals? And what has made him so resolute about this issue? Comments sought. [[User:Gronky|Gronky]] 14:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

== His influence on OpenOffice's use of Java ==

It's worth mentioning his work on raising awareness and getting a solution for OpenOffice's use of features only available in Sun's non-free Java. Some info and refs are here: [[OpenOffice.org#Java_controversy]]. And [[GNOME]] (and Harmony) is another piece of software activism. Maybe [[Gnash]] too. [[User:Gronky|Gronky]] 05:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

== Not "citation needed" tags (2007-04-10) ==

I've added cites for "citation needed" sentences that I could, and have removed the others. Some of the removed sentences should be easy to re-add if anyone feels they are important enough to dig up a citation for them. If other claims need citations, please add tags so I and others can find cites or remove those claims. [[User:Gronky|Gronky]] 13:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

:2007-08-12: FWIW, after adding more references in response to request tags, the article is again clear of all "citation needed" tags. Thanks to those who have added the <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> tags! [[User:Gronky|Gronky]] 20:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

== What about the katana? ==

Call me crazy, but I think there should be something in the article about [http://blag.xkcd.com/2007/04/19/life-imitates-xkcd-part-ii-richard-stallman/ the katana]. :-) [[User:69.110.6.69|69.110.6.69]] 06:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Your link no longer works, but I know what you mean, and yes. :)
See here: http://xkcd.com/225/
Someone gave him a katana just in case.
[[User:24.218.46.235|24.218.46.235]] 20:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

== A mini-rant about cites ==
See [[WP:VERIFY]].

This article contained the formerly uncited statement "Stallman is a Green Party supporter." I added the fact tag requesting a cite for this. On 15 May 2007 [[USER:Rtc|Rtc]] removed this fact tag, commenting, "Removed fact, since the "Support the Green Party" heading at the very top of his home page is really highly visible."

Now that I look on his home page, I see that that's true, and I've added a link to it as a cite, but when I requested a cite for this ''I did not know that that was where I should look for this information.'' '''Providing the source is the''' '''''point''''' '''of having cites.''' The idea is not to make the reader guess, work, or search -- if you ''know'' that the source is "X", ''just cite it.''

Comments from [[USER:Rtc|Rtc]] or anyone else are welcome. -- [[User:201.50.253.154|201.50.253.154]] 15:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

:You're right. Sometimes not everyone knows the procedures or reasons for doing things, so sometimes bad things get done, but Wikipedia counterbalances by letting anyone fix the mistake, and hopefully the person who made the mistake will learn when the mistake is fixed. So lessons like this are usually learned without anyone having to write rants. [[User:Gronky|Gronky]] 19:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

::I don't usually write rants. However, I thought that this was a good example of this problem, so I posted in order to expedite the ''"hopefully the person who made the mistake will learn"'' process -- as well wishing to bring this to the attention of others who didn't make ''this'' mistake but might be tempted to make it in their future edits. I really think that Wikipedians need to be a ''lot'' more conscientious about cites, in general. -- [[User:201.50.253.154|201.50.253.154]] 21:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

:::Why wasn't a good edit summary enough education for this user? [[User:Lentower|Lentower]] 00:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

:::Why didn't you just post the rant to the User's talk page? [[User:Lentower|Lentower]] 00:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

::::Hmm, this discussion might be getting more screen time than it really merits, and I'd like to try to taper it off, but to answer your question here -- Because, as I said, IMHO neglecting to include good cites is an extremely common problem with the Wikipedia, so my intention was not so much to say, "Private message to so-and-so, please be careful about this", but rather, "General message to all Wikipedians, please be careful about this." That's all. :-) -- [[User:201.50.253.154|201.50.253.154]] 19:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

:::Ok, that's one lesson that people might need some nudging on, but new contributors also have to be educated on preserving the collective calm :-) That requires finding the least confrontational way of of sending messages, and delaying confrontation until other techniques (including waiting) have not worked. Editing Wikipedia can lead to very stressful discussions, and that's unavoidable in a project that people are serious about. It's unavoidable, but minimisable. [[User:Gronky|Gronky]] 15:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

== Stallman's plant-phobia ==

I had put that RMS is afraid of plants, and it was deleted because it was uncited. I had her that he was from a former employee of his, and then I asked him myself, and he said yes, he was afraid of any kind of plants with tendrils. However, the only website I can find that that documents this is blocked by my company as "tasteless", so I can't get to the site, and wonder how the heck to document this. I'd like to cite "personal conversation" which works in peer-reviewed journal articles, which I imagine should be to a higher standard than wikipedia.

:As far as I know, Wikipedia doesn't accept personal conversation has a reliable source. Journals have a screening process - they screen who can write in them, and editors screen what has been written. Wikipedia doesn't have these mechanisms, so the cite criteria have to be different.

:Maybe the lack of notes about this in the massive amount of material online about Stallman indicates that this trivia is not noteworthy? [[User:Gronky|Gronky]] 23:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

== on tour ==
Does RMS ever go on speaking tours? if so, where can you find out this info?
{{unsigned|67.71.65.29}}

:It really doesn't have much to do with this article (I suppose we could add it but is it that important?) but his future talks are at http://www.fsf.org/events/rms-speeches.html (also subscribable via mailto:info-gnu-events-subscribe@gnu.org or news:gmane.org.fsf.events.announce). If you want him to go somewhere, I guess you can email him. &mdash;[[User:Joeblakesley|Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley]] [[user_talk:joeblakesley|<sub>talk</sub>]] [[Special:Contributions/joeblakesley|<sub>contrib</sub>]] 12:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

== "When Brian Reid in 1979 placed "time bombs" in Scribe to restrict unlicensed access to the software.." ==

"When Brian Reid in 1979 placed "time bombs" in Scribe to restrict unlicensed access to the software, Stallman proclaimed that "the prospect of charging money for software was a crime against humanity.""

This 'quote' seems a little odd to me. The reference doesn't show Stallman actually saying this, as the Wikipedia quote made me think; it is Reid's recollection of what Stallman said, so I think a direct quote is preferable (and is odd since RMS made lots of money through selling GNU tools in the 80s). The full quote is,

"Such rude behavior was reflected against other, unsettling developments in the hacker community. Brian Reid's 1979 decision to embed "time bombs" in Scribe, making it possible for Unilogic to limit unpaid user access to the software, was a dark omen to Stallman. "He considered it the most Nazi thing he ever saw in his life," recalls Reid. Despite going on to later Internet fame as the cocreator of the Usenet alt heirarchy, Reid says he still has yet to live down that 1979 decision, at least in Stallman's eyes. "He said that all software should be free and the prospect of charging money for software was a crime against humanity."8"

from http://www.oreilly.com/openbook/freedom/ch06.html

:[[WP:BOLD|Be bold]] in your editing, but try to avoid replacing a quote with a longer quote. This ancient is not important enough for a whole paragraph. [[User:Gronky|Gronky]] 13:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

== 2006 Award at Linuxworld? ==

After having watched [[Revolution OS]], and then visiting this page, I notice that the award RMS wins in Revolution OS at Linuxworld 2006 (The Linus Torvalds/Community something-something award) doesn't appear in the Awards-section. Can someone find out exactly which award this is, and add it to the list? <br /><em>- [[User:Lasse_Havelund|Lasse Havelund]] <sup>([[User:Lasse_Havelund|p]]) ([[User_talk:Lasse_Havelund|t]])</sup></em> 22:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

== GNU/Linux link broken ==

The GNU/Linux link under GNU project is broken. Should it point to the GNU/Linux article?

:Fixed, thanks. (I removed the link; internal links "anchors" cannot be relied upon) [[User:Gronky|Gronky]] 09:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

== RMS not missing ==

From freenode wallops

[Fri Aug 17 00:43:13 CEST 2007] !RichiH! Hi all. As you will surely have heard, there was a major earthquake in Peru. It seems Richard 'RMS' Stallmann was travelling from Lima to Chimbote with Mario Ramos on August 15th and no one has heard from him since. If you have any information, please email rms-assist@gnu.org or poke us in #freenode. Also, if you happen to live in South or Central America, please consider donating blood [...]
--[[User:Rtc|rtc]] 23:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

:I added "not" to the title. RMS has since posted to the emacs-devel mailing list. [[User:Gronky|Gronky]] 10:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

::It's good to know he's okay. -- [[User:Derek Ross|Derek Ross]] | [[User talk:Derek Ross|Talk]] 03:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

== Question ==
Was Richard Stallman enrolled as a Ph.D candidate in M.I.T, or was he aiming for as Master's or what? --[[User:213.202.182.23|213.202.182.23]] 23:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

== What - no criticism section? ==

No criticism section?! I would imagine every software engineer worth his [[salary|salt]] hates him, I mean meow meow meow meow [[meow]]

:Many software engineers love Stallman, for providing and inspiring some of the best software development tools ever. Criticism that meets WP criteria (see the talk header above), including citations from secondary sources, etc. would be OK. [[User:Lentower|Lentower]] 17:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

== Personal Life ==

Section's paragraphs read like bulleted lists of unrelated items. Needs to be cleaned up. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/69.211.140.173|69.211.140.173]] ([[User talk:69.211.140.173|talk]]) 03:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== ATI section needs trimming ==

For all the things the guy has done, one instance (of many) when he held a protest placard at an event is not a big deal - not by a long shot. This deserves a sentence at most. --[[User:Gronky|Gronky]] 18:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

: Agreed. [[User:Thumperward|Chris Cunningham]] 10:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

== "Terminology" section ==

While it's true that Stallman coined most of these, they're really GNU/FSF's baby at this point. They aren't quite at the level of "famous sayings" or such, so don't really belong in a bio (which is full to bulging with arbitrary bits of data already). Anyone fancy moving it to the FSF article? [[User:Thumperward|Chris Cunningham]] 10:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

:I'm not sure how (or if) it would fit into the FSF or GNU pages, but it clearly shouldn't still be on this page. That section already has some nice paragraphs, so there's no need to keep the filler parts that are just reprints of what is on the gnu.org words-to-avoid page. Here it is below for when someone wants to move it somewhere else. --[[User:Gronky|Gronky]] 13:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

----
In an essay, [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html "Words to avoid"] posted on the GNU Web site, he suggests the following:
* "Software idea patents" rather than the more common "[[software patent]]s", arguing that the latter gives the wrong impression that the patent covers an entire piece of software.
* "(UFO) Uniform Fee Only" as a replacement for "(RAND) [[Reasonable and Non Discriminatory Licensing]]" arguing that a mandatory royalty of any amount discriminates against free software because distributors of free software cannot count the number of copies in existence. This concern is shared by much of the free software and open source communities<ref>[http://perens.com/Articles/OASIS.html A Call to Action in OASIS], accessed on [[18 February]], [[2005]]</ref>, but Stallman's term is not widely used.
* Avoiding "[[Copyright infringement of software|piracy]]" for the act of copying information, arguing that "piracy" has always designated the act of robbery or plunder at sea, and that the term is misused by corporations to lend a greater importance to the act of copying software or other intangible things.
* "Corrupt discs" or "Fake CDs" to describe digital audio compact discs which employ [[Copy Control]] or other similar technology to [[copy protection|prevent copying]], arguing that they break the [[Red Book (audio CD standard)|Red Book]] standard and noting that recently such discs are printed without the Compact Disc logo.
* "Treacherous Computing" rather than "[[Trusted Computing]]", which limits the freedoms of users by denying them the ability to control their computers.
* "Website Revision System (WRS)" as a replacement for "[[Content management system]] (CMS)" arguing that:
:''The term “content management” takes the prize for vacuity. Neither word has any specific meaning; “content” means “some sort of information”, and “management” in this context means “doing something with it”. So a “content management system” is a system for doing something to some sort of information.''
* Stallman refers to "Digital Restrictions Management" (DRM) rather than "Digital Rights Management", because DRM is designed to limit what the user can do, not grant the user more rights. He also suggests calling it "handcuffware", a term which has not caught on in English. The [[Free Software Foundation]] has started the "[[Defective by Design]]" campaign in response to these issues.
----


== Todo out of date ==
== Todo out of date ==
Line 217: Line 51:
== Contributions to ghostscript ==
== Contributions to ghostscript ==


"The Halloween Documents", Microsoft Confidential (Vinod Valloppillil, Aug 11, 1998) cites Stallman as the creator of GhostScript. The 3 major applications threatening Microsoft. according to Microsoft, were Emacs, GCC, and GhostScript. GhostScript is a key element, if not at least predecessor to CUPS. I think it is worth adding to the Emacs, GCC, and Gnu Debugger "list" in the opening paragraphs. --[[User:199.80.154.88|199.80.154.88]] 17:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
"The Halloween Documents", Microsoft Confidential (Vinod Valloppillil, Aug 11, 1998) cites Stallman as the creator of GhostScript. The 3 major applications threatening Microsoft. according to Microsoft, were Emacs, GCC, and GhostScript. GhostScript is a key element, if not at least predecessor to CUPS. I think it is worth adding to the Emacs, GCC, and Gnu Debugger "list" in the opening paragraphs.


[[User:199.80.154.88|199.80.154.88]] 17:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
:I think they may just be wrong about that. The Ghostscript article and various hits[http://lwn.net/Articles/33130/][http://osdir.com/ml/emulators.wine.license/2002-06/msg00100.html] seem to suggest that Deutsch wrote/writes it, and Stallman merely convinced him to release all future versions under the GPL. --[[User talk:Gwern |Gwern]] [[Special:Contributions/Gwern | (contribs)]] 18:16 [[26 October]] [[2007]] (GMT)

Revision as of 18:41, 26 October 2007

Template:Bounty

Template:WP1.0

Todo out of date

Many parts are ancient and it generally isn't a useful guideline to current tasks imo. Anyone really mind if I wipe this and let it grow from scratch again? Chris Cunningham 10:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speeches

This is what Wikiquote is for, and it's bad form to have subsections in extlinks. Can they all be moved across? Chris Cunningham 11:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After 20 years of public speaking, Stallman there are only four topics that he's spoken repeatedly on. So those four links are as concise as possible a summary of his whole software freedom philosophy. On Wikiquote, there are tens or more than a hundred links, which is quite different. The subsection header can be deleted, but I don't see why. --Gronky 11:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a better idea: turn the "terminology" section into "public speaking", and restructure it around the speeches. Better to use them as references than just tack them on as external links. Chris Cunningham 12:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Except that in this case they are not references to prove some particular point, they are whole documents that explain concepts too large to describe completely in the article. --Gronky 12:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then give them articles. That's how encyclopedias work. I dare say that they already have articles. A well-written article should not simply punt important works to some external website to explain. Chris Cunningham 13:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The concepts probably do have articles, but this is about Stallman's personal take on the issues. His examples, his reasons, his logic, his methods. Actually, when something is relevant but is too long to go into an article, that's exactly what external links are for. --Gronky 13:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is lazy. I can't believe we've got three paragraphs about the tragic early end to his folk dancing career, but we can't actually write about the four things which actually define him as an advocate. I'm gladly nuke large parts of the article to incorporate that kind of thing. Chris Cunningham 15:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the speeches, if they are needed, should be included as references rather than external links. This is the type of thing that would most likely be flagged if the article ever went to Featured Article review. The article already has a rambling and anecdotal flavor, and this makes it worse. We don't need to record every single incident that happened in any of his policy-related activities. His examples, his reasons, his logic, his methods are things that people can use Google for. His speech on the issue of GPLv3, if it is needed at all, might be linked from GNU General Public License, where his arguments in favor of version 3 are discussed in the text of the article. EdJohnston 19:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Direct links to speeches: is everyone following the issue?

There is a small-scale edit war about some direct external links to Stallman speeches. Can someone who regularly follows this page explain things from scratch? I don't see the need for the links, personally, but a better explanation might slow down the reverting by various parties. EdJohnston 17:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's hardly an "edit war" as such: User:Gronky, as is his wont, occasionally restores sections of previously-prepared text with little apparent consideration for article history, or indeed whether the content he's adding is already included on the page in exactly the same format. When this happens, I remove the duplicate section and leave a descriptive edit comment. In this case, however, User:ViolentCrime has apparently decided that this is a content dispute. No, I don't know why either.
I expect this has already died down. Chris Cunningham 17:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly is the problem with having a seperate section for the speeches? Why are you edit warring over this? If the duplication bbothers you, remove it from the Output section, where iti is buried. ViolentCrime 18:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mayhaps, having asked me to come to the talk page, you could participate in it yourself. Nobody's edit warring; a couple of editors made good-faith reverts without bothering to check the full picture, is all. Chris Cunningham 18:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What is it that you are responding to, if not my participation? You have made 5 reverts to the same section in a little over 24 hours, so you are clearly edit warring over this. In addition, you are more than a bit uncivil in your tone. If it is the duplication that bothers you, why can't we have a seprate section for the speeches, and remove the same copy in the output section? ViolentCrime 18:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contributions to ghostscript

"The Halloween Documents", Microsoft Confidential (Vinod Valloppillil, Aug 11, 1998) cites Stallman as the creator of GhostScript. The 3 major applications threatening Microsoft. according to Microsoft, were Emacs, GCC, and GhostScript. GhostScript is a key element, if not at least predecessor to CUPS. I think it is worth adding to the Emacs, GCC, and Gnu Debugger "list" in the opening paragraphs.

199.80.154.88 17:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Richard_Stallman&oldid=167266985"