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

241–250 of 253 posts

Re: Libreboot – Defend Richard Stallman

#241

Post by knz_ »

icha wrote: post #88
andrewshadura wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean hundreds of anonymous GitHub accounts or absolutely nobodies are risking something, as opposed to people who have proven track record of actually doing real work in the world of free software? Just wow.

Oh, wow. Maybe if you actually skimmed through the list of supporters you'd find that they're real people with real jobs strongly interested in FOSS from all around the world? Or are you, perhaps, a jingoistic xenophobe for whom only American opinions matter?

A bunch of 4chan kids signing a reactionary letter vs hundreds of respected names in the FOSS community.

One of these groups has a negative impact on society as a whole, the other are hundreds of respected people working for free or reduced pay to create FOSS software.

Re: Libreboot – Defend Richard Stallman

#242

Post by spamizbad »

Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #211
spamizbad wrote: post #104

Give me a break. Look, if you don't want his personal conduct to factor in, let's look at the percipidous decline in free software (and the rise of copy right BSD/MIT/Apache open source software). Years ago, LLVM was offered to Stallman and the FSF. Due to the idiosyncratic way he chooses to handle his email, he never even got their message. As such: LLVM fell under a BSD-style license. Clang was built on top of it,…

> As such: LLVM fell under a BSD-style license An extremely silly tall tale. When we released our software under GNU GPL licenses, we didn't write rms to ask for his permission or blessing. We just did release it under the license we felt was best for our vision. So if llvm was released under different license, this is fully on llvm author. They had reasons to release it under the license that fitted them best.

It's documented truth - from RMS himself:

https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2015-02/msg00...

Chris Lattner's original email: https://gcc.gnu.org/legacy-ml/gcc/2005-11/msg00888.html

> The patch I'm working on is GPL licensed and copyright will be assigned to the FSF under the standard Apple copyright assignment. Initially, I intend to link the LLVM libraries in from the existing LLVM distribution, mainly to simplify my work. This code is licensed under a BSD-like license [8], and LLVM itself will not initially be assigned to the FSF. If people are seriously in favor of LLVM being a long-term part of GCC, I personally believe that the LLVM community would agree to assign the copyright of LLVM itself to the FSF and we can work through these details.

If your view is LLVM's licensing is irrelevant to the free software movement then perhaps you don't understand free software as much as you think.

Re: Libreboot – Defend Richard Stallman

#243

Post by ikerdanzel »

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 know a lot of people that defend RMS and fully agreed with OP. I know a lot of people who don't care that much. As for your final conclusion that "if not you're enemy" I don't fully agreed with. You can be indifferent too. Not a single person that dislike RMS I know of can prove that he committed a crime. The dislikes are purely based on opinionated statements which is part and parcel of free speech. Showed me he committed something bad rather than "oh my feeling hurt because he said something not nice so he must be purged". I classified these kind of outraged people as snowflakes. Yeah, what a load of trash flakes.

Re: Libreboot – Defend Richard Stallman

#244

Post by meribold »

geofft wrote: post #103
caslon wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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), bu…

> I mean, the OSI is filled with people who work for proprietary companies So is GNU, though. For instance, https://gcc.gnu.org/steering.html identifies the affiliations of most of the GCC steering committee, and they're generally proprietary companies. (Several work for Red Hat, a subsidiary of IBM.) Also, if we're going to claim that working for a proprietary-software company means you're not a member of the free s…

That steering committee has condemned RMS as well now.

Re: Libreboot – Defend Richard Stallman

#245

Post by Andrew_nenakhov »

spamizbad wrote: post #242
Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As such: LLVM fell under a BSD-style license An extremely silly tall tale. When we released our software under GNU GPL licenses, we didn't write rms to ask for his permission or blessing. We just did release it under the license we felt was best for our vision. So if llvm was released under different license, this is fully on llvm author. They had reasons to release it under the license that fitted them best.

It's documented truth - from RMS himself: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2015-02/msg00... Chris Lattner's original email: https://gcc.gnu.org/legacy-ml/gcc/2005-11/msg00888.html > The patch I'm working on is GPL licensed and copyright will be assigned to the FSF under the standard Apple copyright assignment. Initially, I intend to link the LLVM libraries in from the existing LLVM distribution, mainly…

> If your view is LLVM's licensing is irrelevant to the free software movement then perhaps you don't understand free software as much as you think.

Ah, I love the smell of the Straw Man argument in the morning. Please, don't do that in civilized discussions. I have never stated that LLVM is not Free Software.

Regarding the links you provided, it is irrelevant. If LLVM developers really had wanted to release the code under GNU GPL license, they would have done it. If they had wanted to transfer copyright to FSF, they would have done it. They didn't, and without a doubt they had more strong reasons than 'they didn't answer my email'.

I think that the use of the Apache license has more to do with Lattner's then employer, Apple. I can't recall any software by them ever released under GNU GPL license, and they are not known as friendly to GPL.

Re: Libreboot – Defend Richard Stallman

#247

Post by segfaultbuserr »

Glavnokoman wrote: post #147
segfaultbuserr wrote: post #115

Five years ago, Leah Rowe published a hasty declaration on libreboot.org, announcing that, as a free software developer, she's boycotting the GNU Project and the Free Software Foundation after a transgender employee she personally knew was allegedly fired due to discrimination. [0] Later Rowe apologized, said it was a mistake for several reasons, mainly for accidentally revealing the identity of that employee, eventu…

I fail to see any change in her position. In both cases she openly defend the person treated unfairly in her opinion. What is inconsistent here?

The inconsistency here is that Leah Rowe stopped the initial boycotting campaign before that campaign was able to make any change, it was pretty clear that the original intention was to refuse cooperation unless the FSF acknowledges and solves the problem in a satisfactory manner. But it never happened, AFAIK, to this day, that ex-employee in question is still highly critical of the FSF on its alleged mishandling of the issue.

Re: Libreboot – Defend Richard Stallman

#248

Post by baybal2 »

akagusu wrote: post #236

Usually people whom point that is a conspiracy against Free/Libre Software are dismissed as lunatics or fanatics. Because all FUD spread over the years by big corps like Microsoft and Google, developers are so anti-GNU and so anti-GPL that they firmly believe in nonsenses like GPL being a restrictive license so you should use MIT or another permissive license for your code so big corps can adopt it. Another nonsense…

> Everybody knows that the Tech Industry are full of people worse than RMS. Tech industry are full of CEOs, CFOs, CTOs, COOs, manager, that are sexists, racists, transphobics, misogynists and and yet there is no public campaign to remove them from their roles. The same companies that are promoting this campaign against RMS are the companies that don't hire women or black, asian, latin, trans people for leadership and executive roles and yet, no public campaign. Why?

Very, very true, if not characteristic of every industry high on power play. With bizarre rumours about personal lives of people in dotcom C-suites, we all know too well about, these people surely should've had people to poke before this.

They should try really.

P.S. RedHat is a very funny company name to hear in this context, especially given the exodus of women from the company, and its own work ethics scandal a few years ago.

Re: Libreboot – Defend Richard Stallman

#249

Post by tyre10 »

spamizbad wrote: post #104

Give me a break. Look, if you don't want his personal conduct to factor in, let's look at the percipidous decline in free software (and the rise of copy right BSD/MIT/Apache open source software). Years ago, LLVM was offered to Stallman and the FSF. Due to the idiosyncratic way he chooses to handle his email, he never even got their message. As such: LLVM fell under a BSD-style license. Clang was built on top of it,…

There are dozens of other gcc developers: Had they been eager to accept this offer, they'd have found ways to make Stallman see that email.

Where was the SC, who just had enough power to remove RMS, in this situation? Why aren't they to blame?

Most likely, as is always the case with large patches, no developer wanted to bother, because LLVM wasn't known yet.

But we are post-truth, and all failings of an organization are attributed to a single individual. Seems like the tradition of human sacrifices to cleanse a group is popular again.

Re: Libreboot – Defend Richard Stallman

#250

Post by sildur »

Latty wrote: post #141
jstanley wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Well, my point was that this article actively avoids answering that question. From what I can see, yes, he does. He seems to take the position that children should be able consent to sex with adults, which fundamentally makes contributors less safe, and in my opinion is worthy of removing him from positions of leadership. His comments (from https://web.archive.org/web/20210325013844/https://stallman.... ): > Due to t…

He has since changed his view on the subject [1]:

> 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.

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

Post reply on HN