121–130 of 208 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, it's a win for users that large corporations avoid this license.
Most users use those large corporations. I'm afraid I don't follow your thinking on this topic.
Interesting to note that the A record for stallman-report.org was, up until a few days ago, the same as the A record for drewdevault.com: https://i.ibb.co/RNBGcTJ/securitytrails-drewdevault.png https://i.ibb.co/NYtTQnh/securitytrails-stallmanreport.png So even though the report is anonymous, we can be almost certain that Drew is behind it, as he was for the previous hit piece.
Furthermore, while that same IP address (46.23.81.157) no longer hosts the stallman-report.org website, responding with "404 Site not found" if requested, it still has a certificate for stallman-report.org, which can be observed if a matching SNI record is sent during the TLS handshake: https://i.ibb.co/S0fPvW3/ddv-sr-cert.png
This connection to Drew, combined with this comment from him here:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41838124
and this link also posted here (the commented is downvoted to [dead]):
https://kiwifarms.net/threads/drew-chadwick-devault-ddevault...
puts some much needed light on the source of all this heat.
GNU kind communication guidelines the report purports to be transphobic: "Please think about how to treat other participants with respect, especially when you disagree with them. For instance, call them by the names they use, and refer to them using words whose meanings (as you understand them) cover those participants' stated gender identities. Please also show tolerance and respect for people who do that using diff…
It is hate speech, and a form of psychological abuse, to misgender trans people when you should know better. Depending on jurisdiction, it may incur civil or criminal penalties as well.
Again, there is a reason why the Contributor Covenant, itself written by a trans woman, is the gold standard for open source codes of conduct.
Anything more to these allegations than there was last time? Or is this yet another chapter of someone's envy resorting to character assassination instead of finding contentment in their own work? If these people succeeded in their apparent goal of making RMS less popular, do they think the world will love them for it? Why aint they signing their name?
I've read most of the report and it's got a lot more than "last time". Speaking as someone who has done a lot of my own research on Stallman's bullshit, the depth of this report is astonishing. The allegations it makes regarding the conduct of the rest of the FSF is particularly alarming. I think you should at least skim it before you comment.
One would hope you'd read the entire thing, since you appear to have been behind it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41859793
Interesting to note that the A record for stallman-report.org was, up until a few days ago, the same as the A record for drewdevault.com: https://i.ibb.co/RNBGcTJ/securitytrails-drewdevault.png https://i.ibb.co/NYtTQnh/securitytrails-stallmanreport.png So even though the report is anonymous, we can be almost certain that Drew is behind it, as he was for the previous hit piece.
Furthermore, while that same IP address (46.23.81.157) no longer hosts the stallman-report.org website, responding with "404 Site not found" if requested, it still has a certificate for stallman-report.org, which can be observed if a matching SNI record is sent during the TLS handshake: https://i.ibb.co/S0fPvW3/ddv-sr-cert.png
A search for all subdomains of drewdevault.com reveals rms-draft-84eb252.drewdevault.com, which had certificates issued on 29th September 2024, a few days before stallman-report.org was registered:
https://crt.sh/?q=rms-draft-84eb252.drewdevault.com
Helpfully, the Internet Archive monitors the Certificate Transparency logs and crawls all hostnames it finds. Which was done very soon after the certificate for rms-draft-84eb252.drewdevault.com was logged:
https://web.archive.org/web/*/rms-draft-84eb252.drewdevault....
From this, we can see that it is an earlier copy of the document that currently exists on stallman-report.org:
https://web.archive.org/web/20240929110752/https://rms-draft...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Furthermore, while that same IP address (46.23.81.157) no longer hosts the stallman-report.org website, responding with "404 Site not found" if requested, it still has a certificate for stallman-report.org, which can be observed if a matching SNI record is sent during the TLS handshake: https://i.ibb.co/S0fPvW3/ddv-sr-cert.png
Additional evidence has been uncovered linking Drew to this report, from Certificate Transparency data. A search for all subdomains of drewdevault.com reveals rms-draft-84eb252.drewdevault.com, which had certificates issued on 29th September 2024, a few days before stallman-report.org was registered: https://crt.sh/?q=rms-draft-84eb252.drewdevault.com Helpfully, the Internet Archive monitors the Certificate Transpare…
We can now ascertain that this was a lie and an attempt to mislead, because it's clear from the accumulation of evidence that he authored it. While writing and editing this document he would have read every word, not just "most of" it.
He is also keen to congratulate himself by not-so-humbly announcing that "the depth of this report is astonishing".
Knowing that the author has engaged in such deceptive sockpuppetry casts significant doubt on the document itself. How much of it has been written to mislead the reader and misrepresent the facts?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41838124
> I've read most of the report and it's got a lot more than "last time". Speaking as someone who has done a lot of my own research on Stallman's bullshit, the depth of this report is astonishing. The allegations it makes regarding the conduct of the rest of the FSF is particularly alarming.
> I think you should at least skim it before you comment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Taboos are often controversial. And if he were a sociologist or anthropologist, published in the field with any reputation at all in it, who could speak on that complex dynamic over history and the interplay between environment, tradition, human biology, and social context, he might have a prayer of using reason to move the needle on the taboos in his own culture. But he's not. He's a professor in another field speak…
But does he have a right for his personal opinion in a free country?
If that’s the case, I’m completely against ejecting him simply because he publishes nasty thoughts. I say this as a guy who lived through many kinds of abuse as a child. My opinions and almost everything are the exact opposite of his. I don’t like most of his opinions, I don’t like his humor, I disagree with most of his politics, and dealing with him in person is exceptionally unpleasant.
But the FSF is an American organization, and in America we have something close to free speech. If he’s being kicked out for expressing sick thoughts on his personal website, but not in his capacity as a member of the foundation, I believe they are making a grave and immoral mistake. They have every right to do it, but I don’t agree with taking such action.