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

Libreboot – Defend Richard Stallman

libreboot.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 253 posts

Re: Libreboot – Defend Richard Stallman

#61

Post by tomcooks »

rzwitserloot wrote: post #2

From the linked article: > Our opponents wish to destroy Free Software > Our opponent’s true target is not Richard Stallman; their real aim is to destroy the FSF by thoroughly infiltrating it (like they already have with organisations like the OSI and Linux Foundation). These people even started an online petition calling for RMS’s forceful removal and for the entire board of directors at the FSF to resign from their…

If you think Stallman stands for open source you don't understand free software, open source, nor Stallman.

Re: Libreboot – Defend Richard Stallman

#62

Post by capuno »

EdwardDiego wrote: post #22
throwaways885 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup! You cannot have the FSF without free speech. Creating petitions to excommunicate RMS & other supporters just does not jive with the organisation's founding principles. I'm not going to defend Stallman's comments - they are extremely dubious at best - but I do not agree with trying to bully him out of the movement he helped build. If he really is problematic, you can just 'fork' off and create your own FSF equiva…

Free speech never implied freedom from consequences though - this isn't the government suppressing RMS, it's people reacting to his free speech and deciding that they don't like it. That's how it works.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtXAxk9nDcQ

Re: Libreboot – Defend Richard Stallman

#63

Post by caslon »

rzwitserloot wrote: post #2

From the linked article: > Our opponents wish to destroy Free Software > Our opponent’s true target is not Richard Stallman; their real aim is to destroy the FSF by thoroughly infiltrating it (like they already have with organisations like the OSI and Linux Foundation). These people even started an online petition calling for RMS’s forceful removal and for the entire board of directors at the FSF to resign from their…

I mean, the OSI is filled with people who work for proprietary companies, and open source was made to make free software enterprise.

And the Linux Foundation has a bunch of people from companies that also promote largely proprietary technologies...

So...yeah. The FSF is the last beacon of morality here, in its own strange, beady-eyed way.

I'm not a huge fan of Stallman, myself (I have had many arguments with him), but the people opposing him are pretty awful people largely pushing proprietary software, actually.

Re: Libreboot – Defend Richard Stallman

#64

Post by [deleted] »

gopiandcode wrote: post #4

Software that removes the freedoms of its users is a moral injustice and the FSF has always fought against such injustice. I don’t see how capitulating to lies to satisfy a witch hunt based on slander, and thereby perpetuate an injustice, would help strengthen FSF’s commitment to fighting against the injustice of proprietary software. If all it takes for the FSF to stand by injustice is a misinformation campaign and…

[deleted]

Re: Libreboot – Defend Richard Stallman

#65

Post by jstanley »

Latty wrote: post #25

Any article that just dismisses the issues with Stallman as a smear and tells you not to listen to them without showing why they are wrong instantly seems to have little intent to engage on the facts. This reads like an absurd conspiracy theory. Stallman had some good ideas about software, it doesn't mean he doesn't have bad ideas about other things (like consent), and if so we should continue to pursue the good idea…

> it doesn't mean he doesn't have bad ideas about other things (like consent)

But does he have bad ideas about things like consent?

Re: Libreboot – Defend Richard Stallman

#66

Post by Y_Y »

shadowgovt wrote: post #32
Nursie wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's because it puts restrictions on use. Open source does not.

The GPL does put restriction on use. If you make modification to the code and do not share those modifications, you are constrained from using the code you modified. And those constraints are for political reasons. The Four Freedoms are a political ideology about how software, developers, and users should morally interact, and the GPL exists as a legal tool to support this political ideology. Edit: clarification - by…

> The GPL does put restriction on use. If you make modification to the code and do not share those modifications, you are constrained from using the code you modified.

This is is only true if you consider distribution as part of "use". You're fully entitled to privately run modified GPL code, even as a server or whatevs if it's not AGPL.

Re: Libreboot – Defend Richard Stallman

#67

Post by ocdtrekkie »

So one thing I'm noting here is that this letter has a heavy translation/international bent. Additionally, an extremely large portion of signers have Russian-language names, for example.

Anecdotally, nearly everyone I have ever talked to or worked with in FOSS software has signed the "opposes RMS" letter, and I can't find anyone I recall or have even heard of on this one. But of course, I mostly have worked with people in the English-speaking world.

Does this sort of suggest language or culture is where the divide on this issue might stand?

Re: Libreboot – Defend Richard Stallman

#68

Post by dmos62 »

max1truc wrote: post #10

> The list that attacks Richard has Microsoft, Google, OSI, Linux Foundation, Gnome Foundation and Ethical Source people on it! These people oppose Free Software ideologically What ? The Linux Foundation ? It opposes Free Software ? Did I misunderstand this sentence ?

The letter is a bit hot headed and other commentors here are too. He expands on his reasoning in the letter. The problem with many of these organizations is the huge influence that big tech have on them. Remember, not too long ago a Microsoft exec literally said that Linux is a cancer. Now they're changing their tune, but everyone still has vivid memories of their Embrace and Extinguish campaigns. Many people, especially those that were around at the time, feel uncomfortable when organizations like "OSI, Linux Foundation, Gnome Foundation" are increasingly coming under the power of that same big tech. I agree with the sentiment that there's something perverse in big tech having that kind of influence. It's like Amazon staffing the warehouse workers union.

Re: Libreboot – Defend Richard Stallman

#69

Post by lelanthran »

DetroitThrow wrote: post #54
lelanthran wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So, you're either forced to defend Richard Stallman and accept what's going on over there, or __YOU ARE THE ENEMY OF ALL OPEN SOURCE__. Where did they say that, or anything that implies that?

"Our opponents wish to destroy Free Software" in massive text without highlighting any of the legitimate, less presumptive grievances with Stallman's behavior seems to be a 1:1 drop in. Or are you concerned about their usage of open source in place of free software? They quite plainly state principles which are also shared with the open source movement are what they're defending, even not accounting for their colloqu…

> "Our opponents wish to destroy Free Software"

Does not in any way imply that people not defending RMS wish to destroy Free Software.

> So, you're either forced to defend Richard Stallman and accept what's going on over there, or __YOU ARE THE ENEMY OF ALL OPEN SOURCE__.

This quote does, and is mischaracterising the position of the linked article.

Re: Libreboot – Defend Richard Stallman

#70

Post by radicalbyte »

sgt wrote: post #14

"Clearly, they/them is commonly understood and will cause the least amount of misunderstanding." While I support this campaign and I support RMS right to free speech, I find it ridiculous that everyone is now expected to use they/them pronouns for non-binaries etc. Am I the only one or has the world gone absolutely batshit insane, driven by purple haired Twitter trans-extremists?

It would make the most sense to me to deprecate gendered pronouns from English. You could just remove "she"-rooted pronouns and redefine "he"-rooted pronouns to be genderless.

If that doesn't work, then use "dee" instead. He, she, dee. Then give people who use he/she a nasty look until we've forced them to use "dee".

I really dislike the singular "they" because it always sounds "female" to me. In my second language (Dutch) the singular form of "they" is the female pronoun ("zij"). German has the same thing.

Post reply on HN