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

251–260 of 426 posts

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

#251

Post by lostjohnny »

michaelmrose wrote: post #218
marijn wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

By which you mean a bunch of Twitter nobodies and one somebody who happens to speak for the gnome project.

or that another nobody who actually worked with him?

https://archive.is/https://twitter.com/thomas_lord/status/11...

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

#252

Post by DarkWiiPlayer »

dTal wrote: post #180
grawprog wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the things that really soured me to working as a biologist was being told the data we collected would not be allowed to be made freely available, as we originally proposed and was accepted in our grant proposal. Instead it would be locked away in a government database, available for a fee despite the data being collected using tax dollars, after we'd been working for over a year and a half on the project and h…

Wait, so if research is government funded, said government can just... suppress results? That's horrifyingly corrupt. That right there is a scandal. In that position, I would be tempted to take a stand and release the data as originally planned, while blowing the lid off the whole corruption. Write in big letters on the website "THE GOVERNMENT DOESN'T WANT YOU TO SEE THIS". If you're worried about your career... why?…

> That right there is a scandal

I agree with that. No government should ever give itself legal power to withhold scientific information from the public that funded it. In practice that's making life hard for journalists and other scientists and in principle it's a sign of authoritarian tendencies.

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

#253

Post by lostjohnny »

SolaceQuantum wrote: post #243
lostjohnny wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 think…

You're not in charge of deciding what's inappropriate or not.

Talking about dicks is inappropriate, but if you are an urologist speaking with other urolgy students, it makes perfect sense.

Stallman was writing to other students about the correct representation of the Minsky situation, because they were using Minsky's name in an inappropriate way to protest against MIT-Epstein case. (Unless you think that accusing a dead person without proof is alright)

His entire life has been devoted to finding the precise combinations of words to express what he wanted to say, in the most exact possible manner.

Can you blame him for doing what he did best, among his peers?

I blame the weapon builder who felt triggered and accused him of something he did not do.

> you can think about how women are just pieces of meat all you like

Pathetic...

Nobody ever said that.

You're embarrassing yourself.

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

#254

Post by Avamander »

lbj wrote: post #201

What I fundamentally dislike about RMS' philosophy and the licenses its inspired, is that it values a developers time as nothing. As if the world has some fundamental right to everything that rolls out of my head.

How does it value that time as nothing?

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

#255

Post by Avamander »

ghaff wrote: post #189

Interestingly, one of the latest contretemps on Twitter etc. Lis the desire by some for open source licenses that restrict usage by purpose or organization. For example, ICE, military, law enforcement, etc. A much longer discussion obviously but an example where user freedoms more or less are counter to developers being able to restrict what their software gets used for once it’s been released as open source.

To be fair, if free software can restrict it's redistribution in closed devices, why not in cases where the use restricts user freedoms one step more indirectly?

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

#256

Post by diffeomorphism »

blobs wrote: post #249
TeMPOraL wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Most languages other than English do better.

If English is not your native language "free speech" is also a confusing phrase.

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

#257

Post by Myrmornis »

olalonde wrote: post #246
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.

> There's no practical difference between the two in terms of licensing.

Isn't it the case that (a) there could be / are open source projects with extremely restrictive licensing which totally prevents all distribution. I.e. a "copyright": you can still read and run the software and modify it for yourself, as long as you don't distribute it, and (b) such a project could never be "free" sensu Stallman?

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

#258

Post by DarkWiiPlayer »

dTal wrote: post #236
OJFord wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you're worried about your career... why? What is the point of your career as a scientist if you won't take a stand like that? Not GP, but 'earning a living' can be quite a compelling reason.

Scientist or capitalist, can't be both.

Sure, because only a capitalist would want to live somewhere or have something to eat /s

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

#259

Post by craigsmansion »

gwd wrote: post #208
stelonix wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting, I've been thinking about this myself: whether a new foundation or movement will be created around RMS and without the stigmas that allow people to be "cancelled" over their thoughts or opinions. I have to say, the FSF without RMS simply makes no sense. It's one of those institutions where more than 51% of its effectiveness came from a single person. I firmly believe a "fork" for the FSF is coming soon.

> I have to say, the FSF without RMS simply makes no sense. It's one of those institutions where more than 51% of its effectiveness came from a single person. If that's true, then Stallman has completely failed as a leader. There are 7 billion people in the world; if after 40 years there is nobody of similar caliber at the FSF, it is because he has either not attracted them, not trained them, or has driven them away.…

> I sincerely hope that there will be people in the FSF

There are: https://www.fsfla.org/%7Elxoliva/

But apart from being next in line, he's also next in line: https://twitter.com/sarahmei/status/1174371580547223553

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

#260

Post by TulliusCicero »

4bpp wrote: post #53
ariabuckles wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It wasn't just this incident. RMS alienated so many women from open source and free software over the last 30 years, and we've lost all of those potential contributions. He's been getting breaks for 30 years. That he has also done some very good things isn't a good argument for continuing to tolerate his harmful behaviour after he's been asked to fix it for literally decades, and hasn't.

Do you believe he has alienated more women from FOSS than he has inspired people to contribute to it? Considering the frankly extremely low percentage of female contributors, it seems that he would have had to personally (considering that all of the creepy behaviours listed seem to be limited to his meatspace circles) alienate multiple women for every one woman who did wind up working on in free software, which seems…

> Do you believe he has alienated more women from FOSS than he has inspired people to contribute to it?

If I save a hundred lives as a doctor and then murder one person, does the calculus go in my favor?

Post reply on HN