Why this post disappeared from the home page?
A Critique of the Open Letter Calling for the Removal of RMS
131–140 of 274 posts
Re: A Critique of the Open Letter Calling for the Removal of RMS
#132Earlier quoted context omitted.
Part of his argument is that there would be nothing wrong with possessing child pornography if it depicted consensual intercourse - and Stallman's (recently recanted on, to be fair) views that pedophilia is not harmful and that children can give consent and should be allowed to engage in sexual intercourse with adults are well documented. His general argument is a good one, even given how reprehensible child pornogra…
I don't think the originally linked blurb is implying everything you claim it does - unless you are trying to read between lines, something which I adamently do not do if I do not know the subject personally. Do you have sources for the "well documented" views that pedophilia is not harmful and that children can give consent and should be allowed to engage in sexual intercourse? Because the blurb above certainly does…
>Do you have sources for the "well documented" views that pedophilia is not harmful and that children can give consent and should be allowed to engage in sexual intercourse? Because the blurb above certainly does not say any of that.
Apart from the appendix linked to in the open letter being critiqued in the OP, there is this often mentioned quote by the man himself:
“I am sceptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren’t voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing.”
[0]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21287006
[1]https://selamjie.medium.com/remove-richard-stallman-appendix...
[2]https://medium.com/@thomas.bushnell/a-reflection-on-the-depa...
Re: A Critique of the Open Letter Calling for the Removal of RMS
#133Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I am afraid to put my name/email/github id in support of RMS because some mob in future ... That's exactly what these totalitarian wokists aim for: to make people afraid to oppose them. The only way to stop it is not cave in to their absurd demands. Be strong, live without fear, and do the right thing.
So: I’ll leave you with three more bits of evidence that things are more complex than the open letter would have you believe: 1. A competing letter in support of RMS exists and has accumulated considerably more signatures than the letter condemning RMS. 2. In response someone created a Chrome extension that marks repositories owned by a signatory of this support letter with red text on GitHub. 3. The announcement of…
The trouble is that one generation ago we as people of the free world abhorred the idea of punishing individuals for their beliefs. Now that has changed.
It's not the first time this happened, and it certainly won't be the last, but it's always ended badly in the past.
Re: A Critique of the Open Letter Calling for the Removal of RMS
#134As much as I like rms, I find it very difficult to move past his comments on child pornography[1]. [1] https://stallman.org/notes/2011-mar-jun.html#4_June_2011_(Bo...
From what I understand his actual views aren't that horrible. But it's almost as if he goes out of his way to write things in the most provoking way possible. He really has no regard for how a reader might interpret his text. Which is expected if he has some form of autism. I really think he should run everything he writes by someone who is more empathic. He is a public figure. He has a serious disability when it com…
While I agree that part of the outrage is probably a bit over the top, I think it's exactly comments like the on linked in the GP that are a good reason why RMS shouldn't be in a top leadership role. That and plenty of other things like him blocking improvements in GCC, Emacs and other GNU projects merely by being able to veto plenty of things outright. This is not the look you want to present to the public if you're the FSF.
Re: A Critique of the Open Letter Calling for the Removal of RMS
#135As much as I like rms, I find it very difficult to move past his comments on child pornography[1]. [1] https://stallman.org/notes/2011-mar-jun.html#4_June_2011_(Bo...
From what I understand his actual views aren't that horrible. But it's almost as if he goes out of his way to write things in the most provoking way possible. He really has no regard for how a reader might interpret his text. Which is expected if he has some form of autism. I really think he should run everything he writes by someone who is more empathic. He is a public figure. He has a serious disability when it com…
> Which is expected if he has some form of autism.
There's something ironic about a lynch mob calling someone ableist because he's got autistic communication issues.
Re: A Critique of the Open Letter Calling for the Removal of RMS
#136Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't the core principle of the justice system great?
I was not aware that the justice system operated on the principle of “if I believe someone is innocent, I do not have to consider any of the evidence”.
That is not even near the same galaxy of what I wrote. But you do you.
Re: A Critique of the Open Letter Calling for the Removal of RMS
#137Earlier quoted context omitted.
As I read it, users will still have the option to choose the existing concrete license (ignoring “or later”), so if V4 became a restrictive license somehow, “V2 or later” is no more restrictive for users who don’t want it to be.
I think the worry is that a V4 could be less restrictive. Imagine the FSF gets bought out and releases a GPLv4 that's essentially the MIT license. All existing "GPLvX or later" software like the Linux kernel could then be extended without releasing the source code.
[deleted]
Re: A Critique of the Open Letter Calling for the Removal of RMS
#138Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because there has been this "out of context" argument used several times in this discussion, and I don't understand it: Can you explain to me how the context of [1] and [4] makes [2] and [3] - "is having that photo is not hurting everyone" - sound different than without the context? "[1] This "child pornography" might be a photo of yourself or your lover that the two of you shared. [2] It might be an image of a sexua…
I think that #3 is one of rms’s terribly ineffective and perhaps self-destructive “technically correct” arguments. I read that he’s intending the extremely literal meaning of “having” as he often takes extremely precise, literal meanings that make his writings more difficult to understand than would otherwise be. Let me be clear: I’m not in any way supporting child porn, but I can see how rms could hold a view that m…
Like I wrote in another comment, this would split the fact of "stealing" from "having a stolen object". Like "having the stolen object" does not harm anyone, the taking away is the harm done. I don't think this argument flies with anyone - it did not fly in kindergarten for me - and I'm not sure if RMS sees the world this way or it's only with child porn.
To play devils advocate here:
Taking GPL code into your product and selling it, the fact of selling your product is not harming the person who wrote the GPL code. But with GPLed code RMS has a totally different view than with pictures of nude children.
Re: A Critique of the Open Letter Calling for the Removal of RMS
#139Earlier quoted context omitted.
As I read it, users will still have the option to choose the existing concrete license (ignoring “or later”), so if V4 became a restrictive license somehow, “V2 or later” is no more restrictive for users who don’t want it to be.
What if it became less restrictive?
Fair! Many contributors would likely relicense under a fixed version, so old code that was licensed “or later” is permanently leaked under the license they now find too permissive, but code that’s not maintained has significantly less value.
Re: A Critique of the Open Letter Calling for the Removal of RMS
#140I am afraid to put my name/email/github id in support of RMS because some mob in future will draw incorrect equivalence with whatever they want like "you support RMS then you are an X " where X seems to be a pedo. I am also wondering how many GNU/FSF haters are participating in just because they prefer MIT/BSD and see GNU as a cancer eating at their money making scheme.
> I am afraid to put my name/email/github id in support of RMS because some mob in future ... That's exactly what these totalitarian wokists aim for: to make people afraid to oppose them. The only way to stop it is not cave in to their absurd demands. Be strong, live without fear, and do the right thing.
> That's exactly what these totalitarian wokists aim for
That’s pretty much the core of the entire SJW-movement right there.