Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software (2007) • Hacker News Board

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

#351

Post by lliamander » Tue, Sep 24, 2019, 5:40 PM UTC

krapp wrote: post #206

lliamander wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure not all are aware of his history of inappropriate behavior, but some of us are. I think those of us who are bothered by his ousting are bothered for two reasons: 1. The triggering event was someone misquoting him and the media running with that misquote 2. The timing and manner in which MIT handled the situations suggests that they were hypocritically trying to deflect from their own complicity in the Epstei…

>Also, I fear that it's becoming harder to be a weird nerd in tech[1]. The thing is, tech can embrace "weirdness" without also embracing sexual harassment, hostility and toxicity. Not every behavior that deviates from the "politically correct" norm needs to be worn as a badge of honor and celebrated as cultural quirkiness by tech people.

I'm not saying that tech should embrace "sexual harassment, hostility and toxicity" (though I do think we should be careful how we define such terms). I said I didn't think his behavior should get a pass, and elsewhere in this thread I acknowledge that asking for his resignation may even be the correct response to his past behavior.

My point is that it wasn't his past behavior that lead to his forced resignation. If it had been (as is my understanding of what happened with Kalanick at Uber) I would not be so concerned.

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

#352

Post by foldr » Tue, Sep 24, 2019, 5:46 PM UTC

hdfbdtbcdg wrote: post #350

foldr wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand what he means by that. If there is an age of consent, then some people will be under it by a year. What is the alternative? In your country, there are also people a year under the age of consent. Whether not someone is above the age of consent cannot possibly be considered a "minor detail" in determining whether or not they consented.

Put it this way a member of the Norwegian government has been widely reported to have had sex with a drunk 17 year old (I am not certain whether the reports are true since the teenager has declined to comment). If the age of consent were 18 then the minister would have been investigated by the police. Since it is 16 the minister continues to serve in the government without stigma. Big difference in outcomes but the t…

>Of course there has to be a cutoff.

In which case the difference between $AGE and $AGE-1 is not a "minor detail".

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

#353

Post by Izkata » Tue, Sep 24, 2019, 5:49 PM UTC

Smithalicious wrote: post #327

flatb wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Decades worth of small issues that Stallman was mostly unaware of As a reminder, the "small issues" you mention include accusations, by several independent parties, of, among other things: -Asking female coworkers to lay down topless on a mattress in his office. -Threatening a colleague to kill himself if he/she didn't go on a date with him. -Posting up signs in his workplace along the lines of "Knight for Justice…

The second is unacceptable if it happened as told. I don't know what to think of the first point without context. The third point seems like an innocent joke to me, if slightly inappropriate. I don't mean to defend him from any kind it accusation, but all of this is meaningless without full context and hearing the story from both sides.

> The second is unacceptable if it happened as told.

I've seen enough narrative flipping over the years that this is the one I find least plausible, and requires more information.

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

#354

Post by lliamander » Tue, Sep 24, 2019, 5:50 PM UTC

zapzupnz wrote: post #192

lliamander wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure not all are aware of his history of inappropriate behavior, but some of us are. I think those of us who are bothered by his ousting are bothered for two reasons: 1. The triggering event was someone misquoting him and the media running with that misquote 2. The timing and manner in which MIT handled the situations suggests that they were hypocritically trying to deflect from their own complicity in the Epstei…

See, that's sounds like a fair rebuttal to the situation to me, though I'm not sure that point 3 really stands — who benefits from whom makes no difference to the matter in question, exaggerated though it is. Point 2 is quite strong, though I wonder if they might also have been looking for an excuse to good rid of him for some time? I'm not suggesting that's true at all, that's just musing based on some recent politi…

Regarding point 3 - I think that even if you have to cut ties with someone because of their transgressions, if they did a lot of good then it is still appropriate to have some gratitude for that good. From what I recall of the FSF statement about RMS, I did not see any of that there.

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

#355

Post by lliamander » Tue, Sep 24, 2019, 6:09 PM UTC

foldr wrote: post #309

bluecalm wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't suggest that age shouldn't be considered. It says the difference between 17 and 18 years old is minor. The justification is that depending on which country or even state within a country you're in you could be committing "rape" in one and not committing any crime in another. As rape is a word most people understand as awful violent crime it is absurd for it to depend on details like exact location where it…

There has to be an age of consent. Sex without consent is rape. I don't see the problem. Different countries have slightly different definitions of pretty much every crime in the book. Whether or not you are committing fraud, burglary, assault, etc. etc., will also depend on a number of "minor details" that may vary between jurisdictions. Either RMS thinks there should be an age of consent, in which case it's obvious…

> Given RMS's previous comments on the same subject, it's pretty clear what he's saying here

While I do disagree with Stallman's statement here, I think it's important to point out that your insinuation is not justified.

He did not say that he thought pedophilia was good, only that he was skeptical of the claims that it was bad because he'd only ever been presented with examples of involuntary pedophilia. In the intervening years since this comment was made and the present, his mind has been changed on the subject.

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

#356

Post by cat_plus_plus » Tue, Sep 24, 2019, 6:28 PM UTC

akdas wrote: post #118

cat_plus_plus wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you actually kidding me? As you are nearing adulthood as a teenager, you are sometimes able to sneak into adult spaces and experience a bit of adult off-color talk. Not everything is guarded by a fence, but maybe more tech events should be if the alternative is catering to child sensitivities. In any case, these comments would not even be PG-13 in a Disney movie. Also, if the idea is to protect under-18s from any…

Maybe I'm reading the GP's anecdote incorrectly, but the behavior in question seemed like targeted harassment, not just "a bit of adult off-color talk".

People are throwing these words around so much they lost all the real meaning. Harassment is someone seriously interfering in your life. Bad jokes during a public talk where you are obviously safe from unwanted advances does not qualify. Neither is Joe Biden anything. Al Franken maybe deserved a slap on the face or some other minor consequences around the time things happened (if they did as alleged) but not an unpersoning. The most easily offended person in the society does not get to be a unilateral tyrant over all functional adults with normal offense thresholds.

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

#357

Post by foldr » Tue, Sep 24, 2019, 6:28 PM UTC

lliamander wrote: post #355

foldr wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There has to be an age of consent. Sex without consent is rape. I don't see the problem. Different countries have slightly different definitions of pretty much every crime in the book. Whether or not you are committing fraud, burglary, assault, etc. etc., will also depend on a number of "minor details" that may vary between jurisdictions. Either RMS thinks there should be an age of consent, in which case it's obvious…

> Given RMS's previous comments on the same subject, it's pretty clear what he's saying here While I do disagree with Stallman's statement here, I think it's important to point out that your insinuation is not justified. He did not say that he thought pedophilia was good, only that he was skeptical of the claims that it was bad because he'd only ever been presented with examples of involuntary pedophilia . In the int…

He said that he was "skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children". Thus, it's not surprising that he thinks age is irrelevant to the question of whether or not someone was raped. I feel that my insinuation is therefore entirely justified.

> because he'd only ever been presented with examples of involuntary pedophilia

This framing only underlines the point: if you think that children can "voluntarily" have sex with adults, then clearly you don't think age is relevant to consent! It's overwhelmingly obvious what RMS thinks here. He thinks that it's ok for old men to have sex with "willing" teenagers. I.e., he rejects the entire basis of an age of consent.

>In the intervening years since this comment was made and the present, his mind has been changed on the subject.

Can you provide a reference to his supposed retraction of this statement dated before September 2019? As far as I can see, he only retracted this statement - which remained on his website for many years - after this whole shit storm started. And without apology or any hint of shame. You can see Stallman saying similar things about the age of consent as late as 2018: https://web.archive.org/web/20180924231708/https://www.stall...

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

#358

Post by cbanek » Tue, Sep 24, 2019, 6:30 PM UTC

varjag wrote: post #203

cbanek wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I believe free software will be recognised as one of the paradigmatic changes in how science itself is done. I think we're already there. I'm an astronomer, and we (and many others) are already building platforms with software like Jupyter, dask, holoviews, etc. While RMS may have started with a great idea, I'm not sure he's super influential in actually making progress and writing software. If anything, the idea t…

> While RMS may have started with a great idea, I'm not sure he's super influential in actually making progress and writing software. I had to re-read this to be sure it's not sarcasm. RMS has some of the largest footprints in software among the living people. How can one hold an opinion about his contribution and not be aware of that?

Apologies, and you're right. I meant to have recent in there. No doubt he's written a lot of great software (even if I'm a vim user). But I think his ideas about free software (GPL, copyleft) are more important (and hopefully more long lasting) than his code contributions, and I think he has been focusing on that impact more as well with his work at the FSF, which is good. The thoughts and ideas that he has had about free software will live on.

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

#359

Post by egdod » Tue, Sep 24, 2019, 6:56 PM UTC

ben509 wrote: post #340

egdod wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it isn’t. The “reasonable person” standard in lots of laws exists exactly because we can agree on it as an objective standard.

We don't agree what it actually is, though. In practice, the "reasonable person" standard is achieved by asking a jury. In a jury, the members apply their life experiences to the case they're deciding and then persuade each other to reach a unanimous conclusion. That's an entirely subjective process, and if you repeat it with another jury you can get the polar opposite answer.

Juries might disagree about what a reasonable person would do in a given situation. But that was just a digression.

I think that almost all juries could agree on some subset of behaviors being labeled as “horrible.”

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

#360

Post by flatb » Tue, Sep 24, 2019, 7:11 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.

Can you provide some examples that prove the existence a common pattern in the software development industry of people being "screamed at", "threatened", and "drummed out of their jobs" for not using gender neutral pronouns, please?

I'm more than ready to agree with you if you can.

I would also like to know, if you don't mind, what you consider to be good reason to "refuse to comply" with addressing someone in a way they prefer to be addressed, by using a three-letter word instead of another three-letter word.