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

281–290 of 537 posts

Re: RMS addresses the free software community

#281

Post by hertzrat »

NoImmatureAdHom wrote: post #108
Osmose wrote: post #49

The Minsky defense was not the primary, most important reason RMS can't serve as an effective, inclusive leader for free software, it was just the one that got the most attention. This does nothing to address the numerous complaints of harassment towards MIT students, the _other_ times he spoke out in implicit support of pedophilia, the public gaffes that are unacceptable as a public representative (e.g. the foot ski…

He has been treated unfairly many times and that is, completely independent of whether he's the best choice as leader for the FSF, wrong. You do it here: "the _other_times he spoke out in implicit support of pedophilia...". He wants to have a discussion about what makes sex between people of varying ages wrong. He applies normative principles to it and can't see why it's wrong (e.g., age of consent varies...why would…

The former head of the aclu (a woman) defends Stallman and his various positions. The post was shared a lot last month and is a good read about the entire stallman situation. https://www.wetheweb.org/post/cancel-we-the-web-rms

Re: RMS addresses the free software community

#282

Post by teddyh »

mathgorges wrote: post #21
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…

Thanks for posting these. I was out of the loop on this and tracking down the reporting to which RMS is replying was proving more difficult than expected.

> I was out of the loop on this

Summary: https://sterling-archermedes.github.io/

Re: RMS addresses the free software community

#283

Post by vorpalhex »

solosoyokaze wrote: post #226
craigsmansion wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

We used to have a word for defending the accused, "Justice".

Accusation by a single terrified and led witness does not give license to treat someone like a convict.

Re: RMS addresses the free software community

#284

Post by MrRadar »

linuxftw wrote: post #276
epakai wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GNU project contributions generally require copyright attribution to the FSF. This gives them standing to enforce any GPL violations, but it also makes them rather hard to replace when it comes to GPL enforcement. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.html

Make your own GPL alternative if you don't approve of the FSF and how they conduct themselves. It's like saying Ford is in a leadership position, if you don't like their product, drive something else.

Have you never heard of the network effect? It would be extremely difficult to get users of GNU/GPL software to switch to alternatives after they're already made their choice.

Re: RMS addresses the free software community

#285

Post by anaerobicover »

rantwasp wrote: post #179
ashtonkem wrote: post #24

I really have no idea why anyone wants to keep RMS in charge of the FSF based on his work product alone. What has the FSF been doing other than slowly sliding into irrelevancy over the past 20 years?

yet here we are arguing about the FSF. Why do people care if it’s irrelevant?

Granted that on the internet, people argue for fun. But in meatspace, people usually argue about things that they think art important and should be different. So in this case, parent seems to me to be saying "the downslide of the FSF is bad, and we should fix it, and I think RMS does not help fix it". Or, "it's not irrelevant yet, and shouldn't be, but RMS is making it so".

Re: RMS addresses the free software community

#286

Post by fouric »

tablespoon wrote: post #111
underseacables wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah thank you, quite interesting. Allow me to clarify: when I was riding those words I had an article on a webpage in my mind. Because articles are so online now, it’s easy to change things and call them clarifications, and people miss the slight of hand that it might have been actually a retraction of statements. I do recall clarifications and amplifications in physical newspapers, always intriguing.

> Ah thank you, quite interesting. Allow me to clarify: when I was riding those words I had an article on a webpage in my mind. Because articles are so online now, it’s easy to change things and call them clarifications, and people miss the slight of hand that it might have been actually a retraction of statements. For better or worse, online news articles are living documents now. Especially in breaking stories, I'v…

> revision history

> nice-to-have

I think that explicit changelogs for a journalistic document are actually necessary in order to verify the trustworthiness of the publisher - how else are you going to notice when they start silently "updating" articles that were pushing an extreme (and factually incorrect) narrative at publishing time?

Re: RMS addresses the free software community

#287

Post by NoImmatureAdHom »

Osmose wrote: post #265
NoImmatureAdHom wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He has been treated unfairly many times and that is, completely independent of whether he's the best choice as leader for the FSF, wrong. You do it here: "the _other_times he spoke out in implicit support of pedophilia...". He wants to have a discussion about what makes sex between people of varying ages wrong. He applies normative principles to it and can't see why it's wrong (e.g., age of consent varies...why would…

> completely independent of whether he's the best choice as leader for the FSF It's not independent, you can't just drop the context. RMS the 9-5 software dev at some nameless corporation having this discussion is, while still unacceptable (because the relevant society has decided that it is obvious why sex with minors is harmful), not nearly as impactful as RMS the respected-by-many leader of the free software movem…

I appreciate your thoughtful reply.

I think the problem in it with respect to mine lies here: "because the relevant society has decided that it is obvious why sex with minors is harmful"

But it's not obvious who is a minor or when a minor having sex is wrong. I commented elsewhere, but what about two 15 year olds? A 15 and a 20? In some country X where age of consent is 14, vs. in some country Y where age of consent is 18--is there a moral difference? Where is the real moral line that society has decided upon, according to you? 17.375 years?

The Minsky / RMS thing involved this sort of question. The girl was 17.

Re: RMS addresses the free software community

#288

Post by Ancapistani »

solosoyokaze wrote: post #172
Osmose wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, it does. In context, this letter, especially given it's posted to the FSF site and not, say, his personal website, is meant to justify electing him to the board and address the backlash against it, and I don't really have much patience for a letter addressing only one of the many complaints people have against allowing him a leadership role. It's dismissive of them.

He even continues to defend Minsky in this letter. It's not even an apology, it's just more of the same.

> He even continues to defend Minsky in this letter.

Honest question - is there a way in which someone could not immediately condemn Minsky without defending him?

Re: RMS addresses the free software community

#289

Post by simion314 »

jcranmer wrote: post #277
simion314 wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, but if feels not right , people should use the down vote button , then if the majority pressed down then up then is clearly something it should not be discussed. It is not right that a small number of individuals could hide something, because there is not an equivalent mechanism for a similar number of people to un-flag it. There were different articles about RMS, so why an article that has Red Hat in it's name…

You can't downvote articles; you can only flag them [if you want to express disapproval].

Yeah, I was confused, we can't downvote. IMO flag should only be used for offtopic or content that is against side rules.

I nenver flagged any submission, even if I think is offtopic or low quality, I can ignore it, maybe the people that engaged it have other opinion so why I should decide for others what should they see on the home page.

My proposal might not be better , so I admit I can be wrong and I let the HN stuff to do their job how they think is best, just wanted to tell my opinion that even here stuff might be hidden for you because a small number of people decided it.

Re: RMS addresses the free software community

#290

Post by wetmore »

artificialLimbs wrote: post #274

It is great that RMS is trying to explore his emotional capacity and relate to others! Shocking in these comments how many people believe that people are not responsible for their own emotions. No one can "hurt another" emotionally. It is up to each person to take the mature (and logical) stance that "I am responsible for my emotions". If something someone does or says "hurts me" emotionally, it is because I have cho…

This is like saying that when you shoot someone, it's the bullet that killed them, not you. Maybe it's technically true but it's not very useful, it's just pedantry used in an attempt to deny culpability.
Post reply on HN