John Mark Ockerbloom@mike @acdha But it he's really defending a "philosophy" and not a "philosopher", then why does his headline, and much of his article, focus on the "philosopher"? Why can't the "philosophy", which as far as I can tell has no defendable reason to be dependent on any particular person, be championed and defended in its own right? (And if it can't, or hasn't, is the philosophy really as sound as claimed?)
GNU social JP is a social network, courtesy of GNU social JP管理人. It runs on GNU social, version 2.0.2-dev, available under the GNU Affero General Public License.
All GNU social JP content and data are available under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license.