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

Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software (2007)

gnu.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 426 posts

Re: Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software (2007)

#241

Post by tomxor »

> “Free software.” “Open source.” If it's the same software (or nearly so), does it matter which name you use? Yes, because different words convey different ideas.

Even though i support FOSS over OSS, I've always found this particular argument a bit uselessly pedantic. Both of these term are almost always used casually not legally, when we want to do that (i.e when releasing software) we must use the highly specific language of a particular license anyway... which leaves only the following argument:

> establishing freedom in a lasting way depends above all on teaching people to value freedom.

For non-enterprise uses, how much OSS is not also FOSS? most people assume they are equal because the free part is implied, so do we really need to teach it? most software vendors understand this because they know the majority of people will just use it for free if the source is available regardless of whether it is explicitly given as free. It's too hard to enforce payment in any area except for enterprise... When this market force already exists, does it really help to create a social force to differentiate FOSS from OSS? I'm not sure, I think you just end up pissing off new FOSS enthusiasts.

Re: Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software (2007)

#242

Post by TeMPOraL »

blobs wrote: post #233

'as free speech, not as free beer', to explain what is actually meant with 'free software' doesn't cut it for me. Why not just call it open source and pick the license you prefer? With all respect for Richard Stallman, the label 'free software' is a really poor word choice IMAO.

Precisely because of what RMS keeps saying - the thing is about software freedom, not software price.

Software freedoms and Free Software came first. "Open Source" came later, as a "free just as in beer" spin-off.

Re: Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software (2007)

#243

Post by SolaceQuantum »

lostjohnny wrote: post #209
Frondo wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The complaints about stallman aren't a matter of thoughtcrime, they're a matter of entirely inappropriate behavior, not just once but repeatedly, over the course of decades. This was the one that disturbed me the most: "Going to an RMS talk in the early 90s and meeting with him in person was among the worst of my experienced - I was fifteen, still obviously underage, and skipping gym class to hear him speak at a prof…

> The complaints about stallman aren't a matter of thoughtcrime, they're a matter of entirely inappropriate behavior Who are you exactly to think you can decide what is - without doubt - "entirely inappropriate behaviour"? are you in charge of the thought police?

Sorry, I’m not understanding. Is inappropriate actions a thoughtcrime? Like. I thought thoughtcrime and actions are separate- you can think about how women are just pieces of meat all you like, once you start treating them as pieces of meat then you’ve moved from thinking (thoughtcrime) to action (serial killer)?

(Edit; to be clear, since this was a point of confusion, I do not believe anyone I am responding to thinks women are meat! This is a rhetorical tactic to use as an example.)

Re: Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software (2007)

#244

Post by SolaceQuantum »

ryeights wrote: post #33
SolaceQuantum wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"an unrelated private message board?" Was this an unrelated private message board? I was under the impression it was on a mailing list at MIT.

The list is semi-private, CSAIL-affiliated students and faculty only

So not a private message board?

Re: Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software (2007)

#245

Post by Mikhail_Edoshin »

marijn wrote: post #157
sn41 wrote: post #7

In the years to come, I believe free software will be recognised as one of the paradigmatic changes in how science itself is done. Now chemists and biologists have started talking about making data openly available and so forth. It's a shame that RMS has to spout forth on every issue, and in the current climate of outrage, science may have lost an important transformational voice. I think as a society, we need to cal…

He wasn't blacklisted for committing thought crime. The dumb Epstein email triggered a reevaluation of his consistent creepy and inappropriate behavior against current community standards, which resulted in a large part of the community deciding they didn't want anything to do with him anymore. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from social consequences.

> Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from social consequences.

I often see this phrase and it looks like a fallacy to me. Does anyone question its validity? Social consequences are a severe thing, in practice they mean losing a job or position, boycotting, etc. In ancient Greece to expel a person was a very strong punishment. Nowadays the associated hardbacks are milder perhaps, but still are pretty severe.

If speech is so potent a weapon that to protect against it we have to use extreme social defenses like expulsion, why not to use the same weapon against the perpetrators? Why not to speak in return? Stallman says something, you say something. Take that, Richard Stallman!

I would say that the only appropriate social consequence of free speech could be other free speech.

Also, a distinct characteristic of a true community is that it's inclusive. It can expel its members, but this has to be a very rare event, only when that person's action are actually destroying the community. "Creepy and inappropriate behavior" that went along for many years is hardly that. It's a mere personality quirk. [Addition] And I'd say that this expulsion endangers the community much more than whatever Stallman was inappropriately doing all these years.

Re: Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software (2007)

#246

Post by olalonde »

Myrmornis wrote: post #204

> we mean that it respects the users' essential freedoms: the freedom to run it, to study and change it, and to redistribute copies with or without changes With open source but not "free" (sensu Stallman) software, one is free to run it and study it and change it, right? Since one has read permissions on the code. So the only difference is in distribution rights? So his sentence is misleading regarding the extent of…

> So the only difference is in distribution rights? So his sentence is misleading regarding the extent of the differences?

Yes, it's misleading. There's no practical difference between the two in terms of licensing.

What this boils down to is that not all open source developers subscribe to the free software philosophy (e.g. believe that proprietary software is evil). Therefore, rms doesn't like the term.

Re: Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software (2007)

#247

Post by Smithalicious »

atoav wrote: post #178
Smithalicious wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Amazing how whenever someone does something controversial and gets forced out soon afterwards, it's never the thing they said, but "consistent creepy and inappropriate behavior" based on 10 year old anecdotes that suddenly appear out of nowhere... I'd think that if someone was "consistently" creepy and inappropriate, there would be a pretty good public record for that, but what do I know? EDIT: Let me give a bit more…

One could also see it the other way round: because of the importance of his figure people were more willing to keep their mouths shut and look the other way. Once the tipping point is reached, they don’t see any reason to do that anymore. This is why medival monarchs had jesters to tell them what is really going on. The right thing to do of course is to speek truth to power openly and before everybody else does it, b…

> If it everybody steps up now, it means there was clearly a disconnect between his self image and what his environment thought about him.

Oh, certainly. And I'd say the reason for that is

> because of the importance of his figure people were more willing to keep their mouths shut and look the other way

I don't necessarily blame people for not spekaing out if they were troubled by his behaviour, but this is really unfair towards Stallman. Decades worth of small issues that Stallman was mostly unaware of are being condensed into one big issue. That's why I think the situation is crooked; in my view, Stallman never did anything particularly bad, nor did he harbor any ill will, yet he's facing the consequences of a major scandal.

Also, I don't think that Stallman should be held to the standards of a "medieval monarch". I think you're overstating just how powerful Stallman is (was?); I don't think he was actually in charge of many impactful decisions.

Your points are good but perhaps more applicable to someone like Linus Torvalds, who is fully aware of his controversial behaviour and does actually hold a position of substantial power.

Re: Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software (2007)

#248

Post by craigsmansion »

ariabuckles wrote: post #82
norcalli wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be horrifying to have meticulously documented notes on every thing you ever said that may or may not be true, and may or may not have been a joke. If his career had been a comedian and not a FOSS advocate, then would he still be crucified for saying the same things or would he simply be an awful comedian? I would be dollars to doughnuts that the author of that site and the editors of that "wiki" have made or…

Honestly, I think we let a lot of mean-spiritedness pass as "comedy", and I think sexist comedy causes a lot of real-world problems. > I would be dollars to doughnuts that the author of that site and the editors of that "wiki" have made or thought worse things at some point, but because they have not reached a certain level of celebrity, there's no dossier on them. It's truly ridiculous to me the amount of effort spe…

> on a university mailing list has direct negative effects for a lot of people.

That very mailing list was about to arbitrarily accuse a dead innocent man of a crime to help provide cover for actual criminals still walking the halls at MIT.

This charade around Stallman is an injustice against Epstein's victims, the decent people at MIT, and Minsky.

Re: Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software (2007)

#249

Post by blobs »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #242
blobs wrote: post #233

'as free speech, not as free beer', to explain what is actually meant with 'free software' doesn't cut it for me. Why not just call it open source and pick the license you prefer? With all respect for Richard Stallman, the label 'free software' is a really poor word choice IMAO.

Precisely because of what RMS keeps saying - the thing is about software freedom, not software price. Software freedoms and Free Software came first. "Open Source" came later, as a "free just as in beer" spin-off.

It's not that I don't understand it, it's just very confusing for anyone hearing that for the first time. Is it freeware? No, it's like free speech not free beer. Come on, we can do better.

Re: Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software (2007)

#250

Post by lostjohnny »

marijn wrote: post #157
sn41 wrote: post #7

In the years to come, I believe free software will be recognised as one of the paradigmatic changes in how science itself is done. Now chemists and biologists have started talking about making data openly available and so forth. It's a shame that RMS has to spout forth on every issue, and in the current climate of outrage, science may have lost an important transformational voice. I think as a society, we need to cal…

He wasn't blacklisted for committing thought crime. The dumb Epstein email triggered a reevaluation of his consistent creepy and inappropriate behavior against current community standards, which resulted in a large part of the community deciding they didn't want anything to do with him anymore. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from social consequences.

[flagged]
Post reply on HN