Richard Stallman is coming back to the board of the FSF • Hacker News Board

Re: Richard Stallman is coming back to the board of the FSF

#221

Post by jrochkind1 » Mon, Mar 22, 2021, 2:46 AM UTC

varispeed wrote: post #50

mrob wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The goal of the FSF is "to promote computer user freedom". By "freedom" they mean the four freedoms of the Free Software definition: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html Your proposal contradicts freedom 0, so the FSF cannot support it without abandoning their mission. To do so is both undesirable and unnecessary, because the alleged "exploitation of software developers" is in most cases just people doing what…

Big corporations sponsor FSF then this is an understandable stance as what I am proposing would hurt their bottom line. Current situation saves them huge amounts of money from spending on R&D because developers all over the world will develop something for free (believing the PR around open source) and then if something catches on, big corporation can use it of appropriate it if you will. Sometimes developers from wi…

The philosophy of freedom of open source that RMS and others have been developing pre-dates any significant big corporation sponsorship. (Many of the particular big corporations using open source now didn't even exist then).

I guess you can argue they would have changed it by now but for the subsequent sponsorship. There's no real way to resolve that claim one way or the other.

But it is a coherent philosophy on it's own, it's not some incoherent thing that makes sense only as self-interest of big corporations.

Open source from the start as envisioned by rms and others was about creating software that users could use as they choose, including altering it as they choose and deploying it where and how they want. While they may not have envisioned the economic system that has resolved from that, all the proposals I see on HN for "not letting big corporations take advantage of developers writing open source" are about removing this freedom, making it no longer open source.

So, sure, if some developers don't want to produce work that can be taken advantage of by others without payment, including big corporations -- they can stop producing open source. You shouldn't produce open source unless you want to produce open source. But that doesn't mean the definition of open source is wrong.

Re: Richard Stallman is coming back to the board of the FSF

#222

Post by nobody9999 » Mon, Mar 22, 2021, 2:47 AM UTC

rodgerd wrote: post #166

Mediterraneo10 wrote: post #8

I think it is strange that, on the one hand, the tech world has been advocating for the rights of neurodivergent people – society should accept that people on the autism spectrum are different and that’s OK. But at the same time RMS has been attacked for some statements very probably stemming from his autism that, while they may seem a bit shocking and at odds with the mainstream, were not illegal or intentionally of…

> But at the same time RMS has been attacked for some statements very probably stemming from his autism tha rms has repeatedly said he does not suffer from autism. Even if he did, there is nothing about autism that compels you to try and legitimize child sexual offenders.

>Even if he did, there is nothing about autism that compels you to try and legitimize child sexual offenders.

Where, exactly, did RMS do so? This isn't a troll or a "gotcha" either.

All the claims about RMS doing so are from now public statements by RMS. Please provide (with appropriate context) evidence for the assertion that RMS tried to "legitimize child sexual offenders."

If you perform that exercise in good faith, you'll find that there is no evidence that RMS did (or attempted) any such thing.

I don't know RMS, nor am I associated with any organization with which he is or ever was associated. In fact, I was quite angry when I read the accusations against him.

But rather than take the word of others, I read his statements, in context, and came to the conclusion that those accusations were both false and sensationalized.

I have my suspicions as to why those false and sensationalized accusations were made, but I won't do what those who sought to portray Stallman as an advocate for pedophilia, rape and assault did.

I'll let others make up their own minds as to the motivations of the folks who sought to amplify such claims.

Edit: Clarified the reasons for not airing my suspicions in this comment.

Re: Richard Stallman is coming back to the board of the FSF

#223

Post by bobsled » Mon, Mar 22, 2021, 2:49 AM UTC

howinteresting wrote: post #218

SilverRed wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Autism is very different for everyone who has it. No one is saying that autistic people are assholes, but that stallman may not see or understand how his comments are taken or why people will get upset when the comment is factually correct.

Speaking as an autistic person, that really does not matter. Even though I don't believe in free will, I do believe that a functioning society requires people with power (like RMS, in his capacity as a free software leader) to be held responsible for the harm they cause regardless of how neurodivergent they are. What about all the other people who were excluded from the movement because RMS was an ass? A common human…

How does one accurately quantify hypothetical contributions by people who may or may not exist?

Re: Richard Stallman is coming back to the board of the FSF

#224

Post by jrochkind1 » Mon, Mar 22, 2021, 2:50 AM UTC

winter_blue wrote: post #202

winter_blue wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly this. I love and support open source[1] , but I don’t support all software being “free of cost”. [1] Not the OSI definition of it.

Do people actually support all software being free? Note that I said above: > but I don’t support all software being “free of cost” Does anyone really support all software being free ? That means developers would have to live like saints / monks, with donations to support themselves (and forgo the the 250k income that's become the standard/median in Silicon Valley today...).

Well, there are other ways to get income while producing software than selling the software. You can be a university professor. You can be funded by grants. You can have a job working for a non-software company that lets you produce free software for that company's use that you can also give away, while they keep paying your salary. Things like that were how open source software has been historically produced mostly, right? Heck, there could be a Universal Basic Income, and someone could choose to write the software they want while getting it.

Yeah, none of these would be sufficient to produce all the software that is "needed" or wanted. So, as long as there are people willing to pay for software they can't get for free, all software won't be free.

I support the idea of all software being free, including social changes that would be necessary for that to be realistic, such as serious alterations to capitalism.

Re: Richard Stallman is coming back to the board of the FSF

#225

Post by tadfisher » Mon, Mar 22, 2021, 2:50 AM UTC

numbers_guy wrote: post #162

wmf wrote: post #108

For those who do not know RMS personally: "I worked for RMS longer than any other programmer. ... This was an own-goal for RMS. He has had plenty of opportunities to learn how to stfu when that’s necessary. ... I can confirm the unfortunate reality that RMS’s behavior was a concern [in the 1990s], and that [Marvin Minsky's] protection was itself part of the problem. He was never held to account; he was himself coddle…

"making women uncomfortable" Right wtf does that mean? Clearly there was no actual sexual harassment. So you mean he was ugly and hit on you once? God forbid. We need to fire this man and make sure in the future that only attractive men are allowed to act like men lest we make the women feel uncomfortable.

This may be referring to the widespread rumor/account of RMS propositioning women for sex in his office at MIT, where he kept a mattress. I have no idea if this is true.

Re: Richard Stallman is coming back to the board of the FSF

#226

Post by gotostatement » Mon, Mar 22, 2021, 2:51 AM UTC

nostrademons wrote: post #143

DaiPlusPlus wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then why would someone choose to be an ass - or generally choose to be unlikable?

It's usually a matter of priorities. Neurodivergent/autistic people are usually unaware that what they say could cause offense: they lack either the emotional capacity to feel those emotions themselves, or the ability to empathize and predict that other people will feel them. Assholes know, they just care about other things more. They might throw their coworker under the bus for a promotion. Or they'll sexually haras…

Not to derail the conversation but I find it amusing to put sexual harassment in the same sentence as not paying rent

Re: Richard Stallman is coming back to the board of the FSF

#227

Post by howinteresting » Mon, Mar 22, 2021, 2:52 AM UTC

bobsled wrote: post #223

howinteresting wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Speaking as an autistic person, that really does not matter. Even though I don't believe in free will, I do believe that a functioning society requires people with power (like RMS, in his capacity as a free software leader) to be held responsible for the harm they cause regardless of how neurodivergent they are. What about all the other people who were excluded from the movement because RMS was an ass? A common human…

How does one accurately quantify hypothetical contributions by people who may or may not exist?

Most things in life aren't quantifiable, unfortunately. In our field we're spoiled by how many things can be reduced to numbers, but when it comes to interactions between humans it's essentially impossible. So instead, we have to use subjective evaluations.

My subjective evaluation, having met RMS in person and looked at the consistent patterns in his behavior, is that he is "below replacement value" -- he has overall caused far more harm than the average person in his position would have.

Re: Richard Stallman is coming back to the board of the FSF

#228

Post by hntrader » Mon, Mar 22, 2021, 2:52 AM UTC

mjg59 wrote: post #113

Guthur wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The causes are of different classification and require different responses. When a cause is systemic it maybe with some natural variance and within what realistically deem acceptable, depending on where we set the bounds. While others maybe special cases and require detailed study to understand. Blindly setting outcome goals without understanding the system is folly.

Sure! The response to someone who is deliberately offensive and someone who habitually offends people by accident should be different, and I don't think anyone denies that. But that's not an argument for doing nothing in response to someone who habitually offends people by accident.

  "But that's not an argument for doing nothing in response to someone who habitually offends people by accident."

Well that really depends. Offense is sometimes a strategy employed by cynical actors to gain a political advantage.

If I say that your posts are constantly offending me, what do you propose we do about that?

There isn't a universally applicable rule here.

This is also where the driving analogy breaks down. It's an easy trade-off to revoke someone's license if it means we can prevent death. But taking action to prevent subjective offense enters into a much more tenuous and debatable cost-benefit trade-off. What makes sense would come down to the details of the case.

Re: Richard Stallman is coming back to the board of the FSF

#229

Post by bobsled » Mon, Mar 22, 2021, 2:52 AM UTC

afuchs wrote: post #219

bobsled wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would recommend looking into the less pleasant facts about others you consider philosophically brilliant, especially those further removed from us in time, before you denounce Richard Stallman as irredeemable to history.

> I would recommend looking into the less pleasant facts about others you consider philosophically brilliant, especially those further removed from us in time, before you denounce Richard Stallman as irredeemable to history. This is illegible and does not seem to follow from the rest of this thread. I'm missing where the GP made a statement about a person's "philosophical brilliance." Did I miss something, or is this…

I believed I was responding to a comment by the user "zeruch". I may not be using this comment section correctly.

>His philosophical brilliance has always impressed me, his personal presence is like rotting offal in the sun. He doesn't get the benefit of being remembered for the former when he puts in so much effort to broadcast the latter.

Re: Richard Stallman is coming back to the board of the FSF

#230

Post by themacguffinman » Mon, Mar 22, 2021, 2:57 AM UTC

boomboomsubban wrote: post #199

etrabroline wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great quote. I think a large fraction of male programmers would disagree with Selam Jie Gano's characterization of RMS's statements. These kinds of "culture war" battles should not be happening in GNU. Free Software should be happening and people should be willing to leave these disagreements at the door. If you aren't, I am significantly less interested in working with you and I suspect many GNU contributors are as…

I don't get this. "You should abandon any other ideals you have when working for our ideological project."

The point of an ideological project (or any project, really) is to try and get everyone pulling in the same direction. GNU/FSF is an organization for one specific ideal: free software. It's not intended as a vehicle for any random ideal people care about.