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

111–120 of 155 posts

Re: No Radical Changes in GNU Project

#111

Post by saagarjha »

Ironlikebike wrote: post #101
swsieber wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

My understanding is that the AGPL is an answer to an older problem and didn't see the cloud coming. It addressed those running web-hosted GPL licensed applications who were side-stepping the viral aspect of the GPL by claiming that they were not "technically" distributing a binary by making the application available on the internet as an executing web app. The AGPL requires those who create web applications derived f…

I don't think the AGPL actually cares about being able to undercut the original author's business model, as long as you're not just taking open source software, adding minimal value-add, then keeping that as a closed service.

Re: No Radical Changes in GNU Project

#112

Post by sterkekoffie »

joshuamorton wrote: post #99
hdfbdtbcdg wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Pretty sure she was saying that hand-wavey statements like "he's done bad things in the past" are libelous, not people talking about their experiences. Regardless: there's another option here, where you don't dislike or disbelieve anyone, including rms. Just keep that in mind.

Re: No Radical Changes in GNU Project

#113

Post by bracewel »

swsieber wrote: post #73
fjp wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

George Bush killed a million Iraqis in a war based on fabricated evidence of an Iraqi WMD program

Americans killed a million Iraqis in a war based on fabricated evidence of an Iraqi WMD program. 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 stance on LGBT issues when he was preside…

ah yes, I remember personally lying to congress and pushing false narratives in the media. oh wait, no, that wasn't me was it...

Re: No Radical Changes in GNU Project

#114

Post by saagarjha »

eitland wrote: post #92
sedachv wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Is it not "if you take AGPL code and run it on your server and make it available to other people, you need to give them the code to whatever you're running"?

Re: No Radical Changes in GNU Project

#115

Post by saagarjha »

asjw wrote: post #109
butchlugrod wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "hit piece" was written by Stallman himself.

It was written by an engineer who didn't know who Stallaman is and works for the US military.

I don't see how a person's employment in the military is relevant here.

Re: No Radical Changes in GNU Project

#116

Post by wcchandler »

claudiawerner wrote: post #93
endianswap wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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/…

Reminds me of this scene from Buffy the Vampire Slayer where the character simply didn’t understand something: https://youtu.be/MZ96c7IOIPQ

Re: No Radical Changes in GNU Project

#117

Post by joshuamorton »

sterkekoffie wrote: post #112
joshuamorton wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Pretty sure she was saying that hand-wavey statements like "he's done bad things in the past" are libelous, not people talking about their experiences. Regardless: there's another option here, where you don't dislike or disbelieve anyone, including rms. Just keep that in mind.

It's very difficult for me to square "these are libelous hit pieces" with not disbelieving people when said libelous hit pieces reference firsthand accounts.

Said handwavey statements are also not libelous, at all. Libel is a high bar.

Re: No Radical Changes in GNU Project

#118

Post by ghaff »

saagarjha wrote: post #111
Ironlikebike wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My understanding is that the AGPL is an answer to an older problem and didn't see the cloud coming. It addressed those running web-hosted GPL licensed applications who were side-stepping the viral aspect of the GPL by claiming that they were not "technically" distributing a binary by making the application available on the internet as an executing web app. The AGPL requires those who create web applications derived f…

I don't think the AGPL actually cares about being able to undercut the original author's business model, as long as you're not just taking open source software, adding minimal value-add, then keeping that as a closed service.

The AGPL was really driven by the increasing prevalence of software being delivered in the form of a service. I don't recall much discussion of business models at the time but there was at least a school of thought that the GPL's protections of software freedom were being eroded because of service providers exploiting this "ASP loophole."

Re: No Radical Changes in GNU Project

#119

Post by teddyh »

29083011397778 wrote: post #104
claudiawerner wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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/…

Cue somebody pointing out how recent this is; then followed by a rebuttal pointing out the phrase recent years, and that while the post may be new, the change of heart may not be

In fact, he seems to have changed his mind about that as early as 2016:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biograp...

(Credit for finding this goes to dependenttypes: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21092184)

Re: No Radical Changes in GNU Project

#120

Post by ghaff »

saagarjha wrote: post #114
eitland wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Is it not "if you take AGPL code and run it on your server and make it available to other people, you need to give them the code to whatever you're running"?

It's the "whatever you're running" that gets complicated if you're using the AGPL code in conjunction with a bunch of other code to deliver some service to customers. What are the rules around how that other code is allowed to interact with the AGPL code before it has to be made available as well?
Post reply on HN