341–350 of 368 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Stallman wanted to protect the right to fix bugs, he was not against paying for goods and services.
He was also famously staunchly against proprietary software in any way, so therefore he wouldn't have been spending money on software unless there was no other option that came close to meeting his needs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Even an open source license misses the point, because the implication is still that one person can dictate how another person can make use of knowledge To be considered open source software, the license cannot impose any restrictions on how the software is used. You are free to use the software for whatever purpose you want.
Absolutely not. Go read e.g. GPL license before spreading such falsehoods.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Another way of looking at that is that the people who have been able to accumulate excessive gains from the capitalist system are forced to pay some of that back, to maintain the system that enriched them and those whose labor they profited from. That seems like a screwy but ultimately more than fair deal for the top 10%. Especially when the alternative is pitchforks and torches.
Before you go to the capitalist in their home and torch it or beat them in front of their family, try striking for a while. Usually they soften rather quickly when labour is collectively withheld.
> The percentage of workers belonging to a union (or total labor union "density") varies by country. In 2024 it was 9.4% in the United States, compared to 20.1% in 1983, the first year with data suitable for comparison.[2]: 1 [3] There were 14.3 million members in the U.S. in 2022, down from 17.7 million in 1983.[2][3] Union membership in the private sector has fallen to 6.0%, one fifth that of public sector workers, at 33.1% (2022).[2][3] From a global perspective, in 2016 the US had the fifth lowest labor union density of the 36 OECD member nations
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_unions_in_the_United_Sta...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't think it can happen in the US (for cultural reasons) Cultural reasons are just a matter of spindoctoring/propaganda. Nixon almost implemented a form of UBI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Assistance_Plan In Alaska there's already a form of UBI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Permanent_Fund
The reason I think it is hard in the US is because there is a very strong "work or die" ethic in the US. Everything is driven by money. Even basic things like healthcare are driven by money. Your life after retirement is determined by how much money you accumulated. The word-association between "poor" and "lazy" is strong. Taxation should be light. Each man should keep what he accumulates. BI by contrast values peopl…
> Cultural reasons are just a matter of spindoctoring/propaganda.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are not too many mentally-sharp, fully-employed, terminally-ill people that I have met. Even fewer at tech companies. And even fewer who are single and childless. (Google would likely go after the estate of anyone who did this.)
I wonder how hard they would press an estate. It’s bad PR to go after widows and surviving children, and the data has already escaped. This is something they’d want to settle quietly, so the family would have leverage.
Do you think they care? People with cancer are often laid off from companies. Sometimes a bit after their diagnosis becomes known to the company.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Even an open source license misses the point, because the implication is still that one person can dictate how another person can make use of knowledge To be considered open source software, the license cannot impose any restrictions on how the software is used. You are free to use the software for whatever purpose you want.
Absolutely not. Go read e.g. GPL license before spreading such falsehoods.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Even an open source license misses the point, because the implication is still that one person can dictate how another person can make use of knowledge To be considered open source software, the license cannot impose any restrictions on how the software is used. You are free to use the software for whatever purpose you want.
This is the same “beer not speech” argument that has been going on for decades. A quick search will show you why your claim is incomplete.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So Anna's Archive is in some ways a front for AI companies, gathering the sources they can't get themselves?
They could get access for free through torrents.
I think this is net positive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Absolutely not. Go read e.g. GPL license before spreading such falsehoods.
Nowhere in the GPL does it say how you can USE the software - you are free to run, modify, and use it any way you see fit. All its restrictions are triggered by DISTRIBUTION of the software, especially modified versions.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenWrt (see History section)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
We've banned this account for repeatedly breaking the site guidelines and ignoring our requests to stop. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html .