Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Stallman’s Law

gnu.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 150 posts

Re: Stallman’s Law

#71

Post by misrepresent »

cyphar wrote: post #67
ghaff wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Because as far as I'm aware, they don't include "user freedom". I'd largely disagree with that. I see "Open source" described (and describe it myself) as something that has many advantages as a way of developing software and developing communities (users and developers) around that software. But, at the same time, it's absolutely about letting users maintain control and being able to directly influence the direction…

The "open source definition"[1] does not agree with your reading. In fact, that annotations appear to entirely skirt around the issue of freedom. For example, their claimed reasoning for freedom 1 (freedom to modify) is: > The mere ability to read source isn't enough to support independent peer review and rapid evolutionary selection. For rapid evolution to happen, people need to be able to experiment with and redist…

Do you think one mission statement on one website represents the position for all of us?

Re: Stallman’s Law

#72

Post by catern »

misrepresent wrote: post #71
cyphar wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "open source definition"[1] does not agree with your reading. In fact, that annotations appear to entirely skirt around the issue of freedom. For example, their claimed reasoning for freedom 1 (freedom to modify) is: > The mere ability to read source isn't enough to support independent peer review and rapid evolutionary selection. For rapid evolution to happen, people need to be able to experiment with and redist…

Do you think one mission statement on one website represents the position for all of us?

Clearly this has now devolved into mere semantics, but... if your position emphasizes user freedom, then your position is the "free software" position, not the "open source" position, just as a matter of the historical definitions of those terms. "Open source" was coined for the explicit purpose of de-emphasizing user freedom (that is, making the idea of FOSS more palatable to companies that were not interested in allowing user freedom). So...

Re: Stallman’s Law

#73

Post by gaius »

cyphar wrote: post #22
daveguy wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Disagree on the basic principles" is diplomacy 101 fail -- a great way to project animosity. It is the basic principles on which they agree .

What are the basic principles of "open source"? Because as far as I'm aware, they don't include "user freedom". It's all about practical benefits which are not the primary benefits of free software (the primary benefit of free software is freedom).

Well there's free as in speech. And free as in beer. And free as in working for IBM without getting paid.

Re: Stallman’s Law

#77

Post by ThrustVectoring »

makecheck wrote: post #47

Corporations need to be treated as if they could have radically different managers at any moment (because they can). The Best Company Ever of today could be bought by Worst Corporation In Existence tomorrow. It essentially doesn’t matter what a company is currently doing or “promises” to do or not do, if those behaviors are not legally binding. And even then, if you have to read a hundred-page document to figure out…

It also works great when you buying a satisfactory toaster is the problem. It works less well when your neighbor buys an insecure IoT toaster that DDoSes the website you want to read an article from.

Re: Stallman’s Law

#78

Post by flukus »

gaur wrote: post #17

No, you can't just take a statement and call it a "law", even in a facetious sense. Murphy's law, Betteridge's law, or other facetious laws are at least roughly formulated as "if X, then Y" (or sometimes "Y happens"), which mimics the structure of actual scientific laws. Stallman's statement is formulated as "if X, then maybe Y" (or "Y could happen").

> No, you can't just take a statement and call it a "law", even in a facetious sense.

Well he did, so apparently you can.

Re: Stallman’s Law

#79

Post by gilopll »

loup-vaillant wrote: post #51
edblarney wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That some corporations can abuse IP is obvious, but that doesn't remotely imply that the concept of IP itself is either dysfunctional or immoral. Stallman is completely wrong in all these statements. He's very shortsighted in fact, his views are 19th century if anything, and they're not even very intellectually founded, or well expressed.

I just DuckDuckWent "richard stallman predictions", and found this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3418340 It enumerates a number of predictions Richard Stallman made, that turned out to be true. Do not dismiss him too quickly. By the way, the concept of IP is obviously dysfunctional: ideas and expressions are non rival goods . They are not moved, borrowed, nor stolen; they are only copied from substrate to sub…

Intellectual property is as real as real property. A Native American would make the same argumentyou do, but levy it against the notion of real eatate: owning a plot of the earth is ridiculous.

Your argument against "nonrival" would imply that if a manufacturer creates surplus product, its ok to steal the surplus because no one else needa it.. even if they go bankrupt because no one then buys the non surplus.

And a Marxist would say that labor ia property, and its rheft to deprive a laborer of ownership of their labor. All property is a legal fiction, you cant arbitrarily decide that one kind ia legitimate and the others aren't. Rivalry is just one factor.

Re: Stallman’s Law

#80

Post by known »

Essential Rules of Tyranny

Rule #1: Keep Them Afraid

Rule #2: Keep Them Isolated

Rule #3: Keep Them Desperate

Rule #4: Send Out The Jackboots

Rule #5: Blame Everything On The Truth Seekers

Rule #6: Encourage Citizen Spies

Rule #7: Make Them Accept The Unacceptable

http://www.alt-market.com/articles/198-the-essential-rules-o...

Post reply on HN