A Critique of the Open Letter Calling for the Removal of RMS • Hacker News Board

Re: A Critique of the Open Letter Calling for the Removal of RMS

#181

Post by yur3i__ » Wed, Apr 07, 2021, 10:27 AM UTC

torthrowaway999 wrote: post #130

yur3i__ wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not really the part I have an issue with, its more the assertion that child pornography "does not hurt anyone".

He refers specifically to possession, which is true. The arguments against it tend to be very similar to the arguments against piracy (they even include the whole "illegal prime" concept). He does not say that producing child pornography does not hurt anyone however.

I don't think the same logic that is applied to piracy can be applied to child pornography as possession of child pornography has the added caveat that the subject within most likely did not give informed consent to it being made.

Re: A Critique of the Open Letter Calling for the Removal of RMS

#182

Post by DarkCrusader2 » Wed, Apr 07, 2021, 10:28 AM UTC

krapp wrote: post #161

DarkCrusader2 wrote: post #98

> A competing letter in support of RMS exists and has accumulated considerably more signatures than the letter condemning RMS. > In response someone created a Chrome extension that marks repositories owned by a signatory of this support letter with red text on GitHub. This is incredible worrying. This is basically maintaining a repository of people with "incorrect" opinions. How long before such repositories are inte…

It surprises me that so many people are outraged by a Chrome extension that highlights names - and does nothing more as far as I know - denouncing it with all of the righteous anger that Hacker News can muster (including wanting to blacklist anyone who contributed to the extension, and wanting to see everyone with progressive politics purged from free software entirely) yet no one seems too bothered when RMS supporte…

> It surprises me that so many people are outraged by a Chrome extension that highlights names - and does nothing more as far as I know

Nothing more as of now but you should see the support for it on twitter. This rationale is similar to Nothing to hide argument[1]. Path to dystopian future is paved with good intentions. And maintaining a naughty list is definitely not in good intentions.

> and wanting to see everyone with progressive politics purged from free software entirely

Where are you getting this from? Absolutely no one suggested that.

> The hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance among Stallman's supporters

I am not a Stallman supporter, fwiw.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_to_hide_argument

Re: A Critique of the Open Letter Calling for the Removal of RMS

#183

Post by sokoloff » Wed, Apr 07, 2021, 10:29 AM UTC

ex3ndr wrote: post #71

sokoloff wrote: post #42

Earlier 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.

Starting from v3 no, thats why many projects are still on GPL v2

Could you expand on that?

Suppose there’s a library “foo” licensed under GPL v3 or later.

GPLv4 comes out and has a term I don’t like (maybe it says “may not be used by anyone with more than 2 ‘o’s in their name”). Am I not free to use foo under the v3 terms, ignoring “or later”?

From the v3 license: Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies that a certain numbered version of the GNU General Public License “or any later version” applies to it, you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that numbered version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of the GNU General Public License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation.

Re: A Critique of the Open Letter Calling for the Removal of RMS

#184

Post by aiilns » Wed, Apr 07, 2021, 10:30 AM UTC

krapp wrote: post #161

DarkCrusader2 wrote: post #98

> A competing letter in support of RMS exists and has accumulated considerably more signatures than the letter condemning RMS. > In response someone created a Chrome extension that marks repositories owned by a signatory of this support letter with red text on GitHub. This is incredible worrying. This is basically maintaining a repository of people with "incorrect" opinions. How long before such repositories are inte…

It surprises me that so many people are outraged by a Chrome extension that highlights names - and does nothing more as far as I know - denouncing it with all of the righteous anger that Hacker News can muster (including wanting to blacklist anyone who contributed to the extension, and wanting to see everyone with progressive politics purged from free software entirely) yet no one seems too bothered when RMS supporte…

You are surprised because you equate two things that are qualitatively different.

Some people advocating for arresting someone for something they did, even if it is way too crazy is quite different than tools that enable discrimination based on an opinion. Remember these people are just supporting RMS, not advocating for slavery or exterminating the Jews (and even then I don't know whether you could support such a thing).

Just take a look at the "yellow badge" [1], the Jewish insignia that Nazis made Jews wear to distinguish them. This extension has far more many similarities with this example than with what you compare it to.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_badge?wprov=sfla1

Also, your link is broken. And please before you speak of "hypocrisy" and "cognitive dissonance" think of the matter at hand a bit more. Your comparing these two issues is so obviously wrong it's not even funny.

Re: A Critique of the Open Letter Calling for the Removal of RMS

#185

Post by krapp » Wed, Apr 07, 2021, 10:31 AM UTC

ljm wrote: post #168

krapp wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It surprises me that so many people are outraged by a Chrome extension that highlights names - and does nothing more as far as I know - denouncing it with all of the righteous anger that Hacker News can muster (including wanting to blacklist anyone who contributed to the extension, and wanting to see everyone with progressive politics purged from free software entirely) yet no one seems too bothered when RMS supporte…

Looking at both examples, the entire situation is bothersome and, frankly, exhausting. I don't know where people find the energy to fuel all this outrage when there is surely somewhere to meet in the middle. It's difficult to take seriously, and understand the genuine underlying issues, when emotions all around are amplified to the extreme. Campaigning to have someone arrested on one end and employing totalitarian ta…

> Looking at both examples, the whole situation seems like yet another toxic, mind-numbing internet squabble.

It really is. There have been hundreds of threads just after Stallman's recent reappointment to the FSF board of directors alone, to say nothing of his "cancellation," many with hundreds if not thousands of comments, most of which are just a cesspool of toxicity, trolling and outrage porn.

The truth is that both sides have a point, and both sides are acting in bad faith towards the other.

Re: A Critique of the Open Letter Calling for the Removal of RMS

#186

Post by torthrowaway999 » Wed, Apr 07, 2021, 10:31 AM UTC

KingOfCoders wrote: post #126

McSinyx wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You missed the ease of digital replication: one needs not participate in a sexual act involving children to replicate child pornography. It's not like it's a healthy thing to consume such material, but the distinction must be made to avoid the concept being abused by digital publishers who think one sharing an ebook with a friend would cause lost in their revenue.

If I steal an apple from you and grow more apples from it and give them away, there is no difference to the act of stealing your apple and eating it. As a side note: RMS seams to be totally against "stealing" digital GPLed code.

>If I steal an apple from you and grow more apples from it and give them away, there is no difference to the act of stealing your apple and eating it.

Certainly, but we talk about digital good here, stealing the first apple harms me (unless if I was not going to use it regardless), copying it however does not.

>RMS seams to be totally against "stealing" digital GPLed code.

Please explain what you mean by stealing here. He is against taking GPLed code, modifying it, compiling it, and then distributing the binary without distributing your modifications. He has no problem with selling the application/code. He has no problem with keeping the modifications to yourself as long as you do not share the binary. He has no problem with distributing the unmodified binary and/or code.

Re: A Critique of the Open Letter Calling for the Removal of RMS

#187

Post by loup-vaillant » Wed, Apr 07, 2021, 10:32 AM UTC

KingOfCoders wrote: post #126

McSinyx wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You missed the ease of digital replication: one needs not participate in a sexual act involving children to replicate child pornography. It's not like it's a healthy thing to consume such material, but the distinction must be made to avoid the concept being abused by digital publishers who think one sharing an ebook with a friend would cause lost in their revenue.

If I steal an apple from you and grow more apples from it and give them away, there is no difference to the act of stealing your apple and eating it. As a side note: RMS seams to be totally against "stealing" digital GPLed code.

If I take your apple, scan it in my StarTrek replicator, then put it back, I've not stolen anything. At worst, I've borrowed it without your consent. The fact that I can use my replicator to make as many apples as I want, which are just like the one I borrowed from you, is not stealing.

Not saying it wouldn't be wrong. But it's decidedly different from stealing.

Likewise, getting a copy of a copyrighted movie with Bittorent through the Pirate Bay is not really stealing. It may still be wrong, but since it does not deprive the original owner from their own copy of the movie, it's different from stealing.

In general, non-rival goods should be treated with different rules and laws than rival goods. Turning them back into rival goods like copyright does strikes me as a very bad idea. Artificial scarcity is… non optimal to say the least.

Re: A Critique of the Open Letter Calling for the Removal of RMS

#188

Post by gher-shyu3i » Wed, Apr 07, 2021, 10:34 AM UTC

krapp wrote: post #161

DarkCrusader2 wrote: post #98

> A competing letter in support of RMS exists and has accumulated considerably more signatures than the letter condemning RMS. > In response someone created a Chrome extension that marks repositories owned by a signatory of this support letter with red text on GitHub. This is incredible worrying. This is basically maintaining a repository of people with "incorrect" opinions. How long before such repositories are inte…

It surprises me that so many people are outraged by a Chrome extension that highlights names - and does nothing more as far as I know - denouncing it with all of the righteous anger that Hacker News can muster (including wanting to blacklist anyone who contributed to the extension, and wanting to see everyone with progressive politics purged from free software entirely) yet no one seems too bothered when RMS supporte…

Let's see how you like it if your name is highlighted for the cancel culture mob.

Re: A Critique of the Open Letter Calling for the Removal of RMS

#189

Post by KingOfCoders » Wed, Apr 07, 2021, 10:34 AM UTC

sokoloff wrote: post #160

KingOfCoders wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I copy your GPLed code you still have it.

You added that part afterward in an edit and I was still replying to that part, but you’re right and that’s what rms is encouraging: that we both have the code and both have the freedom to learn, modify, and tinker on it as does anyone we convey the code to.

Only with the consent the author == if my code is GPL, not if I'm copying the code into my proprietary code.

Re: A Critique of the Open Letter Calling for the Removal of RMS

#190

Post by vidarh » Wed, Apr 07, 2021, 10:35 AM UTC

krapp wrote: post #161

DarkCrusader2 wrote: post #98

> A competing letter in support of RMS exists and has accumulated considerably more signatures than the letter condemning RMS. > In response someone created a Chrome extension that marks repositories owned by a signatory of this support letter with red text on GitHub. This is incredible worrying. This is basically maintaining a repository of people with "incorrect" opinions. How long before such repositories are inte…

It surprises me that so many people are outraged by a Chrome extension that highlights names - and does nothing more as far as I know - denouncing it with all of the righteous anger that Hacker News can muster (including wanting to blacklist anyone who contributed to the extension, and wanting to see everyone with progressive politics purged from free software entirely) yet no one seems too bothered when RMS supporte…

Highlighting or keeping lists of people one disagrees with in various ways have a long history of being used for persecution, and worse.

That nobody is calling for that now does not mean it is not chilling to see someone want to highlight someones political views in a context where they are not relevant. These things have an ugly tendency to start out presented as something much more innocent than what they turn into.