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

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

meribold.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 274 posts

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

#231

Post by insert_coin »

dpatterbee wrote: post #226
insert_coin wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, you realize that RMS is wrong on the GNU/Linux thing and somehow are still on the side of forcing pronouns?

It blows my mind that you think that people wishing to be referred to in a certain way that has absolutely 0 negative effects on you or anyone else is somehow a bad thing which you need to argue against so much.

They can wish it all they want. They cannot force it.

What should blow your mind is people mounting huge campaigns to completely cancel someone and then when unable to really defend their positions having the guts to say "it isn't really an issue, it has 0 impact!"

It either is an issue and worthy of ruining someone's life or it isn't. Either simply "feeling" discriminated against is the bar or it isn't. Some people feel bullied when forced to speak a certain way, shouldn't others also be forced to accommodate their feelings?

You can't have it both ways.

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

#232

Post by insert_coin »

dpatterbee wrote: post #225
insert_coin wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are not forced to call anyone anything. You have no right to compel anyone to say anything. You can ask, that's about it. They can say no.

And they can be considered an asshole and asked to not continue their role as a leading representative of a diverse community of people.

Of course!

And the people "asking" can also be considered assholes.

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

#233

Post by taylodl »

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…

The competing letter in support of RMS can be found here: https://rms-support-letter.github.io. The original letter denouncing RMS can be found here: https://rms-open-letter.github.io. At this point in time there are 5,871 signatories in support of RMS, and 3,012 signatories denouncing RMS. Not sure what that means, if anything, but it does lead me to conclude that RMS may not be the pariah of free software that he's made out to be.

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

#234

Post by nec4b »

dpatterbee wrote: post #226
insert_coin wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, you realize that RMS is wrong on the GNU/Linux thing and somehow are still on the side of forcing pronouns?

It blows my mind that you think that people wishing to be referred to in a certain way that has absolutely 0 negative effects on you or anyone else is somehow a bad thing which you need to argue against so much.

They are demanding not wishing.

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

#235

Post by TazeTSchnitzel »

revscat wrote: post #85

I am becoming increasingly skeptical whenever I read claims of transphobia being made. To be sure, there are those who seek to undermine the rights of transsexuals, and who seek to pass legislation accordingly. But at the same time I see issues like this one, or the one with J. K. Rowling, and it does not seem so clear cut at the least, and at the worst is bad faith sanctimony.

JKR's writings are meant to seem reasonable to the lay person who does not know much about the topic. To understand criticism of them you need to develop a deeper understanding of the subject independent of what she wrote. Context is key.

Something similar could be said about the topic of the OP. I think people are too quick to assume that criticisms are in bad faith when they are unfamiliar with the background.

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

#236

Post by sokoloff »

johannes1234321 wrote: post #229
sokoloff wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You continue to be able to use it under GPLv3 terms, but if you distribute it (and don't hold the full copyright) you must distribute it in a "or newer" compatible way.

Interesting. I’m not sure if I don’t understand or if I disagree.

Let’s imagine it’s 2005, I’m TiVo, and the Linux kernel was licensed under “v2 or later”* and GPL v2 is the latest version of the license that exists.

I ship a product using the Linux kernel complying with the GPLv2. FSF dislikes what I’ve done and releases a v3 license in 2006. I claim that in 2007, I’m still allowed to ship my product, by electing to “follow the terms and conditions” of the v2 version of the license and only if Linux relicenses itself as “v3 or later” could I not ship such later licensed versions but I could keep shipping my product as-was with a “v2 or later” kernel, even though my product is compliant with the v2 distribution terms but not with the v3 terms.

Q1. Do you see it differently?

Further, someone else could start a ViTo company in 2008 and ship a same conditions product without violating the GPL “v2 or later” (that there isn’t anything special about TiVo doing it before v3 was released). Q2. Does that change anything?

* - I know Linux kernel is “v2 exactly”, but this was the simplest readily understandable example I could think of, so let’s use that incorrect hypothetical here.

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

#237

Post by taylodl »

simion314 wrote: post #36

I 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 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.

Bingo! Corporate interests have been taking aim at the GNU license and the FSF for decades. They hate that they can't steal free software, make it proprietary, and profit from it - without having to make the entirety of the source available to their customers which thwarts their profit plans.

How many Ask HN posts have we seen where someone is complaining that someone swooped in and "stole" their software, utilizing some form of a BSD license, and are now profiting from it? If you want to protect yourself from such hucksters then become a member of the FSF and license your code with GPL. Now you have legal protection.

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

#238

Post by kodah »

gher-shyu3i wrote: post #218
pseudalopex wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The comment you replied to seems to be about what Stallman said. ("You might feel the line between innocent mistake and maliciousness has not been crossed. Other people do disagree.") It certainly was about names and pronouns. Not a variation on a tired transphobic straw man meme.[1] [1] https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/i-sexually-identify-as-an-att...

The issue has to be addressed. So far, it seems to be a Western (English-only speaking) issue. Furthermore, dismissing any criticism as a "transphobic" straw man isn't helping.

You didn't provide criticism, you made a word meme. There's a big difference. Your reaction does not add to this discourse and furthermore I'd say it damages it.

Consider this: If I disagree with the sentiment that "if a trans person is offended, then it is transphobic" and someone reads your reactionary comment, guess how much more work I have to do to positively engage with someone? The answer is a lot. Said another way, your reactionary statement justifies someone else's extremism.

If you cannot debate people positively, maturely, and without reaching for tools like reactionary statements or sarcasm then please just sit the conversation out.

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

#239

Post by scbrg »

KingOfCoders wrote: post #138
sokoloff wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 produc…

You misunderstand the point of the GPL. It's not there to protect the author of the code. It's there to protect the user of the code, i.e. the one you're selling the product to.

In your scenario, the user won't have access to the code they'd need to modify the product you sold them. That is the harm the GPL is designed to protect against.

Post reply on HN