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

James Gosling on Richard Stallman [video]

youtube.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 148 posts

Re: James Gosling on Richard Stallman [video]

#131

Post by mikeeusa3 »

I see it's attack RMS day 17 today.

I bet Gosling doesn't even like cute young girls, but is happy with whatever women America allows him to be ruled over by (woman is the master in the USA); but all those millions don't get him a virgin young girl as brides.

Even a goat farmer in Afghanistan has such good things. But a top guy in the USA: no way.

Remember: A man isn't a man unless he rules over others. RMS rules over the hearts of thousands, maybe more, what does Gosling rule over? And what is it worth if it doesn't get him the traditional pleasures the Prophets knew? _

Re: James Gosling on Richard Stallman [video]

#132

Post by mikeeusa3 »

I see it's attack RMS day 17 today.

I bet Gosling doesn't even like cute young girls, but is happy with whatever women America allows him to be ruled over by (woman is the master in the USA); but all those millions don't get him a virgin young girl as brides.

Even a goat farmer in Afghanistan has such good things. But a top guy in the USA: no way.

Remember: A man isn't a man unless he rules over others. RMS rules over the hearts of thousands, maybe more, what does Gosling rule over? And what is it worth if it doesn't get him the traditional pleasures the Prophets knew? -__

Re: James Gosling on Richard Stallman [video]

#133

Post by mikeeusa3 »

I see it's attack RMS day 17 today_

I bet Gosling doesn't even like cute young girls, but is happy with whatever women America allows him to be ruled over by (woman is the master in the USA); but all those millions don't get him a virgin young girl as brides_

Even a goat farmer in Afghanistan has such good things. But a top guy in the USA: no way_

Remember: A man isn't a man unless he rules over others. RMS rules over the hearts of thousands, maybe more, what does Gosling rule over? And what is it worth if it doesn't get him the traditional pleasures the Prophets knew?+

Re: James Gosling on Richard Stallman [video]

#134

Post by mikeeusa5 »

kentrado wrote: post #121
craigsmansion wrote: post #27

> I found these two guys who ran this little company called Unipress, it was literally two guys in a garage, and I said, "Look, this needs to be free for universities and not ridiculous for everybody else." Gosling sold them Gosling emacs. Before that he apparently "distributed it freely with no copyright notice." Although Gosling wrote Gosling Emacs, it was based on the plans he and Richard Stallman had developed fo…

>Gosling made millions at Sun Microsystems. That's a little more than needing "food on the table" and "a roof over one's head". Stallman also could have made similar money, but didn't because he thought other things were more important. That's everyone's choice to make, but putting down others because they approached something differently is just bad form. Look where that got him. Homeless, disgraced and without a pe…

Stallman is not disgraced. He stands by his principals. You, enemies, attack him; but you cannot bring him down. For all your "pennies" you cannot achieve what even a dirt farmer in Afghanistan achieves: a virgin child bride. As the Prophets had.

Yes, moderators, I know you will delete this: Islam will end your lines however. You have no futures.

Re: James Gosling on Richard Stallman [video]

#135

Post by mikeeusa5 »

strenholme wrote: post #87
klyrs wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an OSS nerd working in today's corporate culture, I can assure you that GPL is its own form of lock-in. I had to abandon some of my favorite tools when I left university.

Well, I have as part of my job duties scanned dependencies of source code to make sure it didn’t inadvertently include any GPL-licensed libraries. The GPL does not control use, it controls distribution. So, using Emacs and GCC as one’s toolchain does not require a company’s code being made open source. However, using a GPL licensed library “taints” any and all code which touches it. With the complex mazes of dependen…

>Anything a GPL library touches in a bundled executable taints the entire code, forcing it all to be open source.

How is it that I can tell that you are a layman idiot, and also a white?

Ask yourself: is my code that links to a GPL library a non-separable work. And is my code that links to a GPL library derived from that library?

No and No.

Sure: you may be sued. But the copyright holder of the GPL'd library will not likely win.

These are simple concepts. Are you white programmers dumb idiots?

Note: Copyright holders of GPL'd software don't even sue blatant violators such as GRSecurity and Brad Spengler ( https://perens.com/2017/06/28/warning-grsecurity-potential-c... ) who create violating non-separable directly derivative works, adding no-redistribution-or-else additional restrictions to the work in blatant violation of section 6 of the license (GPLv2).

Re: James Gosling on Richard Stallman [video]

#136

Post by mikeeusa5 »

>strenholme wrote: >Anything a GPL library touches in a bundled executable taints the entire code, forcing it all to be open source.

How is it that I can tell that you are a layman idiot, and also a white?

Ask yourself: is my code that links to a GPL library a non-separable work. And is my code that links to a GPL library derived from that library?

No and No.

Sure: you may be sued. But the copyright holder of the GPL'd library will not likely win.

These are simple concepts. Are you white programmers dumb idiots?

Note: Copyright holders of GPL'd software don't even sue blatant violators such as GRSecurity and Brad Spengler ( https://perens.com/2017/06/28/warning-grsecurity-potential-c... ) who create violating non-separable directly derivative works, adding no-redistribution-or-else additional restrictions to the work in blatant violation of section 6 of the license (GPLv2).

strenholme: this is the second point of law you've been corrected on. Since you're not a laywer, maybe you should stop commenting on the law? Because you are a stupid idiot?

Re: James Gosling on Richard Stallman [video]

#137

Post by notdonspaulding »

kragen wrote: post #88
kelnos wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A copyright notice is not required for copyright; by default in the US, everything copyrightable is copyrighted unless it comes with a public domain notice. If there's no license attached, or no agreement somewhere, then you do not have legal right to redistribute someone else's work, even if they gave it to you freely. Gosling was perfectly within his rights to sell gosemacs to Unipress (though note that Gosling nev…

> A copyright notice is not required for copyright; by default in the US, everything copyrightable is copyrighted unless it comes with a public domain notice. This did not become law until 1989. https://www.sunsteinlaw.com/copyright-flowchart (Stallman started work with Steele on EMACS in 1976, and the dispute happened in 1985.) Until that point, US copyright law protected the public from copyright abuse with strict…

> ...Gosling's account is false and defamatory, and omits the crucial background fact that the program he sold to Unipress was an imitation of a program Stallman had devoted the last seven years of his life to, …

So, was Gosling's program an imitation or a copy of Stallman's work? I'm unfamiliar with the actual history, but isn't that a relevant distinction in this case?

> ...and the subsequent fact that three months after the initial release of GNU Emacs, Stallman had removed the disputed code.

Is there a you-can-use-it-for-3-months exemption for copied works? Also, why remove it at all if it was an "imitation" of his original work?

Re: James Gosling on Richard Stallman [video]

#139

Post by mikeeusa5 »

jefft255 wrote: post #86
foobar_ wrote: post #57

James Gosling is responsible for Java which supports cubicle hells where programmers are viewed as interchangeable spigots. Why do people without any intellect whatsoever talk about intellectual copyright? Hillarious.

Java is a decent enough programming language and, even if that wasn't true, this guy is not responsible for the "cubicle hells" you talk about. I don't know what kind of reasoning you applied here.

> I don't know what kind of reasoning you applied here.

He's a but-for cause thereof, white wage-slave retard. The preceding post is using tort-law causation logic obviously, fucking moron.

>DUURRR I DONT KNOW WHAT I DONT KNOW BUT I KNOW EVERYTHING!!!! -t. white fuck.

Re: James Gosling on Richard Stallman [video]

#140

Post by kragen »

notdonspaulding wrote: post #137
kragen wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A copyright notice is not required for copyright; by default in the US, everything copyrightable is copyrighted unless it comes with a public domain notice. This did not become law until 1989. https://www.sunsteinlaw.com/copyright-flowchart (Stallman started work with Steele on EMACS in 1976, and the dispute happened in 1985.) Until that point, US copyright law protected the public from copyright abuse with strict…

> ...Gosling's account is false and defamatory, and omits the crucial background fact that the program he sold to Unipress was an imitation of a program Stallman had devoted the last seven years of his life to, … So, was Gosling's program an imitation or a copy of Stallman's work? I'm unfamiliar with the actual history, but isn't that a relevant distinction in this case? > ...and the subsequent fact that three months…

Please see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21252185.
Post reply on HN