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

Libreboot – Defend Richard Stallman

libreboot.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 253 posts

Re: Libreboot – Defend Richard Stallman

#11

Post by lelanthran »

rzwitserloot wrote: post #2

From the linked article: > Our opponents wish to destroy Free Software > Our opponent’s true target is not Richard Stallman; their real aim is to destroy the FSF by thoroughly infiltrating it (like they already have with organisations like the OSI and Linux Foundation). These people even started an online petition calling for RMS’s forceful removal and for the entire board of directors at the FSF to resign from their…

> So, you're either forced to defend Richard Stallman and accept what's going on over there, or __YOU ARE THE ENEMY OF ALL OPEN SOURCE__.

Where did they say that, or anything that implies that?

Re: Libreboot – Defend Richard Stallman

#12

Post by shadowgovt »

> Despite the name, Ethical Source licenses are in fact non-free because they put restrictions on usage of the software; if the author of such software disagrees with your political views, they can ban you from using the software.

That strikes me as a weird distinction for somebody who supports copyleft to make. Is the difference that the political view that copyleft licenses support is limited to the issue of redistribution and modification of code?

Edit: I follow the author's reasoning now - they're using "non-free" in the Four Fundamental Software Freedoms technical sense.

Re: Libreboot – Defend Richard Stallman

#14

Post by sgt »

"Clearly, they/them is commonly understood and will cause the least amount of misunderstanding."

While I support this campaign and I support RMS right to free speech, I find it ridiculous that everyone is now expected to use they/them pronouns for non-binaries etc. Am I the only one or has the world gone absolutely batshit insane, driven by purple haired Twitter trans-extremists?

Re: Libreboot – Defend Richard Stallman

#16

Post by EdwardDiego »

max1truc wrote: post #10

> The list that attacks Richard has Microsoft, Google, OSI, Linux Foundation, Gnome Foundation and Ethical Source people on it! These people oppose Free Software ideologically What ? The Linux Foundation ? It opposes Free Software ? Did I misunderstand this sentence ?

Don't forget Red Hat, a company that makes it living from FOSS, apparently now also hates FOSS...

Re: Libreboot – Defend Richard Stallman

#17

Post by throwaways885 »

flyinglizard wrote: post #6
rzwitserloot wrote: post #2

From the linked article: > Our opponents wish to destroy Free Software > Our opponent’s true target is not Richard Stallman; their real aim is to destroy the FSF by thoroughly infiltrating it (like they already have with organisations like the OSI and Linux Foundation). These people even started an online petition calling for RMS’s forceful removal and for the entire board of directors at the FSF to resign from their…

The way the ideology behind free software is intertwined and inspired by free speech, one feeds from the other.

Yup! You cannot have the FSF without free speech. Creating petitions to excommunicate RMS & other supporters just does not jive with the organisation's founding principles. I'm not going to defend Stallman's comments - they are extremely dubious at best - but I do not agree with trying to bully him out of the movement he helped build.

If he really is problematic, you can just 'fork' off and create your own FSF equivalent.

Re: Libreboot – Defend Richard Stallman

#19

Post by EdwardDiego »

RMS is a grown-up, he talked his way into this mess, he can talk his way out. Might involve compromise though, so good luck with that.

But seriously, it's on him to fix this. If he doesn't believe he needs to, then well, he can go sit with Brendan Eich in the "intelligent, but unwise" corner.

Re: Libreboot – Defend Richard Stallman

#20

Post by __s »

infinityplus1 wrote: post #3

How about just ask the guy directly? What are his current views?

I don't understand what point you're trying to make. Part of the issue here is that rms has published his current views to great length. The issue at hand is over interpretation, which rms has the consistency to not bother rewording things for your benefit if asked to clarify
Post reply on HN