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

RMS addresses the free software community

fsf.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 537 posts

Re: RMS addresses the free software community

#221

Post by rbanffy »

icebergonfire wrote: post #205
rbanffy wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My reading of this in the context of the post is that he self-aware enough to strive to be better, and admits he has failed to do so in the past. Just now? He hasn't changed for decades and has been informed his behaviour is something people have "to cope with" for his benefit and never seemed to make even a small effort to change. > As much as we would like people to grovel and apologize the perfect way... they ra…

> Then he's unfit for a leadership role, plain and simple. I can't actually argue with your reasoning here. Although my personal take is that he deserves an additional attempt... I can also see why one wouldn't be willing to give him that role again.

If he can't stop himself from being a divisive figure, he needs to go.

Re: RMS addresses the free software community

#222

Post by [deleted] »

koheripbal wrote: post #131
b215826 wrote: post #10

Now, would the journalists who wrote articles with titles that are a variation of "RMS defended Epstein" [1,2] apologize or at least correct their articles? Also, now that RMS has explicitly clarified his position on these issues, can the people who leveraged his "silence" and "bad behavior" to oust him from the FSF at least admit that their motive was less about making the free-software movement welcoming and was mo…

Neither of those things will happen. We would be better off if we could remove those dishonest people from our communities here and elsewhere. Dishonest reporting, and amplifying of dishonest posts on social media is not something you will ever get an apology for, because those efforts were never meant to survive scrutiny. They were meant to create "pressure" to cause reputational damage. You cannot convince or engag…

[deleted]

Re: RMS addresses the free software community

#223

Post by [deleted] »

whatshisface wrote: post #29
b215826 wrote: post #10

Now, would the journalists who wrote articles with titles that are a variation of "RMS defended Epstein" [1,2] apologize or at least correct their articles? Also, now that RMS has explicitly clarified his position on these issues, can the people who leveraged his "silence" and "bad behavior" to oust him from the FSF at least admit that their motive was less about making the free-software movement welcoming and was mo…

I'd be surprised if we saw retractions, especially retractions reaching everyone who saw the original claims, but maybe Vice could write a piece attacking the daily beast article while the daily beast writes an article attacking the Vice one.

[deleted]

Re: RMS addresses the free software community

#224

Post by arminiusreturns »

geofft wrote: post #167
b215826 wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is there anything competent he has done post-2000 or so? While you may not care about it, GPLv3.

That was sort of the opposite of competent: - Because it was a new license, it necessarily resulted in license fragmentation, which is an ongoing headache for the free software community. It's worth doing if there's a serious need that outweighs the costs and you can guide the community towards dropping the old license, but.... - The Linux kernel had always been GPLv2 only and remained GPLv2-only, which meant that th…

> Of the major issues around software freedom and digital autonomy today, approximately zero of them are TiVoization

According to what? It seems to me tivoization is exactly one of the biggest issues facing users these days, especially in an IoT world, so how you can draw that conclusion (and the others) baffles the mind.

I think if you really want to understand GPLv3, you should listen to Eben Moglen more than RMS, because Eben has the ability to articulate in a way that RMS doesn't, and has given some very good speeches about not just GPLv3, but on the FOSS ecosystem as a whole.

Why is it that almost always I find the attacks against GPLv3 to be so lacking in substance? (for example, using an openly user hostile company like Apple as a reason for why it was bad just seems... like blatant pandering to me, as opposed to a real argument)

Re: RMS addresses the free software community

#225

Post by jasonwatkinspdx »

NoImmatureAdHom wrote: post #183
benrbray wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> He wants to have a discussion about what makes sex between people of varying ages wrong. Great, it's an interesting philosophical question. If the issue is so important to him, he should transition to a career in philosophy, or sociology, or anthropology. However, as a board member of the FSF, a public-facing leadership role, his job is to promote free software and nothing but free software. He shouldn't muddle tha…

Agree with you that the discussion shouldn't be part of his job. But there should also be room for him to have a public discussion that isn't part of his job. I don't recall the details, were parts of this discussion on the fsf home page or something?

Not FSF's site that I know of, but there's mentions of these "consensual pedo" stuff on his blog. As he's a visible spokesperson, that means his blog content is part of his overall role, and not something that can be treated in isolation.

I'd also push back on the post further up: It's not a particularly interesting philosophical question, and I don't think pure inquiry is RMS's goal here given his tendency to aggressively hit on women that are completely uninterested in him in contexts where such behavior is inappropriate.

Re: RMS addresses the free software community

#226

Post by solosoyokaze »

craigsmansion wrote: post #180
davexunit wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's mistreated many FSF staff members, many LibrePlanet attendees, many GNU project contributors, etc. The fact that the public discourse is focused on the Epstein-related comments does RMS and the FSF a huge favor by pointing the spotlight away from the real issue which has been happening for decades .

It's a bit rich that you accuse those who didn't take the initial smear campaign at face value of moving the goal posts. First it was the Epstein connection, which proved false. Then it was predatory behaviour at MIT with three quotes from over 3 decades, a sign on his door, and a mattress doused in implications. Then it was simply "making some people uncomfortable", which is sort of a given if you talk about free so…

> First it was the Epstein connection, which proved false.

This didn't prove false. The article we're commenting on is literally RMS defending Minsky who was credibly accused of raping a minor provided by Epstein. RMS is still connecting himself to Epstein.

Re: RMS addresses the free software community

#227

Post by linuxftw »

MrRadar wrote: post #165
linuxftw wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A bunch of companies joined together and announced they didn't like Stallman. Tellingly, the left out the list of grievances, so we can just endlessly debate which 'issue' is the 'real' issue. > FSF under Stallman kinda lost to open source anyway and hasn't really done anything besides virtue signal to others about how pure and ethical they are Then why do you care at all about the FSF in the first place? It sounds l…

> Then why do you care at all about the FSF in the first place? It sounds like you're here just to spread rumors and opinions in this case. I can't answer for the OP but it's clear that the FSF was a in a leadership position within the software world in the 1980s and 1990s. That position has slipped precipitously despite the increasing importance of the GNU software they developed in every aspect of modern computing.…

> I can't answer for the OP but it's clear that the FSF was a in a leadership position

Who cares about 'leadership position' aren't people capable of deciding things for themselves?

> FSF stands for are good and important, however without an organization to promote them they will continue to wither in the modern age and bringing back RMS will not help to reverse that trend.

So, people can form something similar to the FSF then. Put out a better product, whatever it is the FSF does, and then people will care. Otherwise, your opinions don't matter.

Re: RMS addresses the free software community

#228

Post by bingbong70 »

rbanffy wrote: post #138

It kind of misses the point it was never just about Minsky and Epstein. > I sometimes made others uncomfortable or even offended them -- especially women. This was not a choice: I didn't understand the problem enough to know which choices there were. Did anyone explain him that he downplayed the role of women in the GNU project? Janis Johnson, Sandra Loosemore, and Dorit Nuzman, to name a few, all did extraordinary w…

>And no, it's not normal for adults to be sexually attracted to teens.

~1 million years of human history disagrees with your statement.

Re: RMS addresses the free software community

#229

Post by hackmiester »

jancsika wrote: post #98

That's great, but the problem seems to be RMS's disruption of development activities. This doesn't change that. For example: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2015-01/msg00... Imagine taking the time to publicly explain to an out-of-practice dev why some technical feature is needed, then being accused of a "pressure campaign" that requires the out-of-practice dev to consult privately, "with people I have…

What's the Debian occurrence you speak of?

Re: RMS addresses the free software community

#230

Post by DelightOne »

whatshisface wrote: post #29
b215826 wrote: post #10

Now, would the journalists who wrote articles with titles that are a variation of "RMS defended Epstein" [1,2] apologize or at least correct their articles? Also, now that RMS has explicitly clarified his position on these issues, can the people who leveraged his "silence" and "bad behavior" to oust him from the FSF at least admit that their motive was less about making the free-software movement welcoming and was mo…

I'd be surprised if we saw retractions, especially retractions reaching everyone who saw the original claims, but maybe Vice could write a piece attacking the daily beast article while the daily beast writes an article attacking the Vice one.

What would good update mechanisms be? Is there any today, except "Follow this newspaper forever" and "Hope they do honest retractions"?

One idea.. A system attaches to every article an ID, users read the article and the reader saves the ID for the user and the system later informs him of retractions and critiques, if desired?

Post reply on HN