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

No Radical Changes in GNU Project

lists.gnu.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 155 posts

Re: No Radical Changes in GNU Project

#91

Post by sedachv »

shadowgovt wrote: post #41
jgon wrote: post #19

I don't want to get into the weeds discussing the ins and outs of the various things that have happened with RMS and the FSF. I have my own opinions on whether or not these moves were warranted. Separate from that I guess my largest worry is that this is another step on the road to a complete neutering of the Free Software movement, and the increasing corporate enclosure of the software commons. The one thing I feel…

It's a complicated question, but I think the real decline of true free software commons was probably around the time cloud services proved so valuable. Cloud provides huge leverage to some end-users for getting to the goal of doing the thing they want to do with the software, and it utterly side-steps the Four Freedoms via the simple expedient of "You don't own the hardware the software runs on." GNU hasn't had an an…

> GNU hasn't had an answer to this besides "boycott it," which feels an awful lot like horse-riders suggesting we deal with the problems with cars by never owning or supporting ownership of them.

That is a really unfair way to describe things:

https://www.gnu.org/software/librejs/ https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html

The real problem is corporate propaganda to discourage people from licensing their work under the GPLv3+ or AGPLv3+

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGa_TlRdtG8

Re: No Radical Changes in GNU Project

#92

Post by eitland »

sedachv wrote: post #78
eitland wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also you can ask 20 honest developers what they think AGPL means and get 3 or more wildly different explanations, at least if you include "I've no idea except it also works lver the network".

Or you can stop spreading the FUD and point people to: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-affero-gpl.html

It might very well be that this is more of an education and explanation problem.

My point still stands: I don't personally know a single person who is able to explain AGPL.

Re: No Radical Changes in GNU Project

#93

Post by claudiawerner »

endianswap wrote: post #77
kauffj wrote: post #53

Excellent. This entire incident has been re-enforcing of how willing the media is to lie and how little people care when the lies support a narrative they believe in. Here is what reporter Edward Ongweso Jr. wrote for Vice [1]: > Early in the thread, Stallman insists that the “most plausible scenario” is that Epstein’s underage victims were “entirely willing” while being trafficked. Here is what Stallman actually wro…

"I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily [sic] pedophilia harms children." https://stallman.org/archives/2006-mar-jun.html#05%20June%20...

"Many years ago I posted that I could not see anything wrong about sex between an adult and a child, if the child accepted it.

Through personal conversations in recent years, I've learned to understand how sex with a child can harm per psychologically. This changed my mind about the matter: I think adults should not do that. I am grateful for the conversations that enabled me to understand why."

https://stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html#14_September...

Re: No Radical Changes in GNU Project

#94

Post by Andrew_nenakhov »

swsieber wrote: post #54
shadowgovt wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a complicated question, but I think the real decline of true free software commons was probably around the time cloud services proved so valuable. Cloud provides huge leverage to some end-users for getting to the goal of doing the thing they want to do with the software, and it utterly side-steps the Four Freedoms via the simple expedient of "You don't own the hardware the software runs on." GNU hasn't had an an…

Well, AGPL was the answer to that issue, but it hasn't really done much. I think part of the impact was things like GitHub recommending the MIT license.

People tend to spread a lot of FUD about AGPL. We have recently released a server product under GNU AGPLv3, and very next moment someone says: "Agpl makes it basically worthless except as a toy" :-\

Source: https://twitter.com/binarytemple/status/1172884198912331776

Re: No Radical Changes in GNU Project

#95

Post by okcando »

shadowgovt wrote: post #41
jgon wrote: post #19

I don't want to get into the weeds discussing the ins and outs of the various things that have happened with RMS and the FSF. I have my own opinions on whether or not these moves were warranted. Separate from that I guess my largest worry is that this is another step on the road to a complete neutering of the Free Software movement, and the increasing corporate enclosure of the software commons. The one thing I feel…

It's a complicated question, but I think the real decline of true free software commons was probably around the time cloud services proved so valuable. Cloud provides huge leverage to some end-users for getting to the goal of doing the thing they want to do with the software, and it utterly side-steps the Four Freedoms via the simple expedient of "You don't own the hardware the software runs on." GNU hasn't had an an…

There are licenses to address that, though they're even more expansive or "viral", making the proposition less attractive. What I've seen instead is software project owners, tired of being profited upon by cloud services without contribution, switching to more restrictive licenses or attaching the Commons Clause. Then, commercial use is pay to play.

It's a small tragedy.

Re: No Radical Changes in GNU Project

#96

Post by sedachv »

sounds wrote: post #62
shadowgovt wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a complicated question, but I think the real decline of true free software commons was probably around the time cloud services proved so valuable. Cloud provides huge leverage to some end-users for getting to the goal of doing the thing they want to do with the software, and it utterly side-steps the Four Freedoms via the simple expedient of "You don't own the hardware the software runs on." GNU hasn't had an an…

Cloud services are actually still very fragile and vulnerable to being replaced. (Granted, it will be annoying and painful to find new ways to do things like search the web, manage files/emails, or stream videos, but I think those can all be solved from the technical side.) About the time the proprietary OS was finally declared dead, new competitors arose with convenient, cheap solutions that made money exactly becau…

> Granted, it will be annoying and painful to find new ways to do things like search the web, manage files/emails

The best thing I did to reduce annoyance and pain in managing files and emails was to move off of hosted garbage like Gmail and Dropbox to offlineimap/mu4e and Unison/git/rsync.

Re: No Radical Changes in GNU Project

#97

Post by saagarjha »

swsieber wrote: post #83
favorited wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We all have friends we disagree with, but Ellen deserves catching shit for palling around with a guy who started a war that killed nearly 5 thousand American soldiers and hundreds of thousands of civilians for absolutely nothing.

Americans started a war that killed nearly 5 thousand American soldiers and hundreds of thousands of civilians for absolutely nothing. We're all pretty much complicit. If there's any smaller group to be mad at, I'd say it's anybody who didn't oppose that course, but more likely, the U.S. military complex. Ironically, she didn't catch flack for George being president of the Iraqi war, she caught flack for George's sta…

Presumably because that's something she clearly has an opinion about.

Re: No Radical Changes in GNU Project

#98

Post by dragonwriter »

swsieber wrote: post #83
favorited wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We all have friends we disagree with, but Ellen deserves catching shit for palling around with a guy who started a war that killed nearly 5 thousand American soldiers and hundreds of thousands of civilians for absolutely nothing.

Americans started a war that killed nearly 5 thousand American soldiers and hundreds of thousands of civilians for absolutely nothing. We're all pretty much complicit. If there's any smaller group to be mad at, I'd say it's anybody who didn't oppose that course, but more likely, the U.S. military complex. Ironically, she didn't catch flack for George being president of the Iraqi war, she caught flack for George's sta…

> Americans started a war that killed nearly 5 thousand American soldiers and hundreds of thousands of civilians for absolutely nothing. We're all pretty much complicit.

Not all of us lied to get Congressional authority to use force with explicit conditions, and not all of us declared those conditions to be met and applied the force so authorized in knowing bad faith.

In fact, exactly one of us did that, and his name is George W. Bush.

Whatever guilt anyone else has in that matter is far less.

Re: No Radical Changes in GNU Project

#99

Post by joshuamorton »

hdfbdtbcdg wrote: post #81
iamasoftwaredev wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

and truth and past actions.

Please just stop with the libel. Either present evidence or stop defaming people.

First hand accounts are evidence. That you dislike or disbelieve them doesn't make them libelous, it just means you don't want to believe firsthand accounts of bad actions by a person you admire.

Re: No Radical Changes in GNU Project

#100

Post by dragonwriter »

mattl wrote: post #57
computerex wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll quote the page since maybe you had trouble reading it: https://guix.gnu.org/blog/2019/joint-statement-on-the-gnu-pr... > Yet, we must also acknowledge that Stallman’s behavior over the years has undermined a core value of the GNU project: the empowerment of all computer users. GNU is not fulfilling its mission when the behavior of its leader alienates a large part of those we want to reach out to. > We believe t…

I signed it. I'm not against RMS, I just don't think he should lead GNU. I think the GNU Advisory Committee is better suited to lead things. I believe both the FSF board and the GAC need term limits and I hope they implement them.

> I'm not against RMS, I just don't think he should lead GNU.

The second half of that sentence pits you directly against RMS, who has made clear he does not intend to leave his position with GNU.

Post reply on HN