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

Post by Avamander » Tue, Sep 24, 2019, 4:45 PM UTC

ghaff wrote: post #326

Avamander wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Also to be fair, that was a pretty controversial clause in GPLv3 and ended up getting largely de-fanged before the license was finalized. It’s not obvious to me that workable usage restrictions should automatically be off the table however.

Post by jimmaswell » Tue, Sep 24, 2019, 4:50 PM UTC

arnoooooo wrote: post #170

jimmaswell wrote: post #131

Free software misses the point of open source. Open source wants to make the world a better place without strings attached, while free software just wants to push some bizzare ideology.

Except nothing is "without strings attached" in life. To me "making the world a better place" is precisely about recognizing that everything is interdependent and setting up the right "strings", not about pretending we can live without them.

Post by homonculus1 » Tue, Sep 24, 2019, 4:52 PM UTC

hdfbdtbcdg wrote: post #318

flatb wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you detail, without strawmen or anecdotes, the thought process by which you equate asking to use gender neutral pronouns, or discussing the possibility of it, with "attacks"?

Its not asking though. Its screaming, threatening and drumming people out of their jobs if they don't comply. I say this as someone that uses gender neutral pronouns etc.

Post by jonathankoren » Tue, Sep 24, 2019, 4:55 PM UTC

craigsmansion wrote: post #240

jonathankoren wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Assuming good faith, I’m old enough to remember not only 2009, but also the 1990s. This tacky joke wasn’t considered to be in line with the best advice at either time. While you may need to take my word for 1990s, the very fact that there are multiple contemporaneous articles about the inappropriateness of the 2009 skit, is evidence of that. I will concede that the tolerance for the tacky joke may have been a bit hig…

Some might have found it funny, others might have found it tacky. It's the way jokes work. Important here is that his is not the first time it happened or where it was used disproportionally against him: https://stallman.org/articles/texas.html From the above, from someone at TI he met later who was amused by his joke: "The plant incident, which I found rather humorous, provided a reason for people in the later camp…

Post by hdfbdtbcdg » Tue, Sep 24, 2019, 5:21 PM UTC

DarkWiiPlayer wrote: post #275

hdfbdtbcdg wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we made deliberate or negligent defamation a criminal offence it might restore some sanity to society.

That's similar to how "free speech"* works in Germany, and you have people like crowder saying in public that "Germany has no free speech". I agree in principle, but I think there's lots of good arguments against it as well. More importantly than the question of whether it's legal, I'm amazed that people can still see themselves as "the good ones" after all the things they do to their fellow humans. * In German, we u…