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

No Radical Changes in GNU Project

lists.gnu.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 155 posts

Re: No Radical Changes in GNU Project

#141

Post by joshuamorton »

hdfbdtbcdg wrote: post #140
joshuamorton wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Luckily, no one involved is in the UK. > 2. Richard Stallman has been contributing to a negative environment for women at MIT for over thirty years. From the original article, contains a number of quotes from witnesses and people who felt uncomfortable or harassed due to Stallman's behavior over a span of ~20 years while he was at MIT. Then there's this[1], this one where he argued about the re-inclusion of an aborti…

Nothing here justifies what you said.

My original claim was simply "firsthand accounts are evidence". Your said there wasn't evidence. I provided firsthand accounts. Multiple ones. You are now apparently claiming that these firsthand accounts are not evidence. This is a simple falsehood. You may disbelieve these accounts, but they are still evidence. And they justify what I said: evidence exists.

Re: No Radical Changes in GNU Project

#142

Post by dang »

marble-drink wrote: post #63
Aissen wrote: post #16

For context, I think it's an answer to this open letter from GNU developers: https://guix.gnu.org/blog/2019/joint-statement-on-the-gnu-pr...

Oh won't someone think of the poor women...

We've banned this account for trolling. Could you please not create accounts to break HN's guidelines with? It's not hard to use this site as intended.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: No Radical Changes in GNU Project

#144

Post by hdfbdtbcdg »

joshuamorton wrote: post #141
hdfbdtbcdg wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing here justifies what you said.

My original claim was simply "firsthand accounts are evidence". Your said there wasn't evidence. I provided firsthand accounts. Multiple ones. You are now apparently claiming that these firsthand accounts are not evidence. This is a simple falsehood. You may disbelieve these accounts, but they are still evidence. And they justify what I said: evidence exists.

These are not firsthand accounts. Nor are they accounts of actual bad behavior.

There is nothing in what you posted that merits me believing or disbelieving.

I engaged with your defamation in good faith. You provided no evidence of any bad behaviour so there is nothing more to discuss than you apologizing.

I won't be engaging further.

Edit: wow you even reposted the original hit piece.

Re: No Radical Changes in GNU Project

#145

Post by joshuamorton »

hdfbdtbcdg wrote: post #144
joshuamorton wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My original claim was simply "firsthand accounts are evidence". Your said there wasn't evidence. I provided firsthand accounts. Multiple ones. You are now apparently claiming that these firsthand accounts are not evidence. This is a simple falsehood. You may disbelieve these accounts, but they are still evidence. And they justify what I said: evidence exists.

These are not firsthand accounts. Nor are they accounts of actual bad behavior. There is nothing in what you posted that merits me believing or disbelieving. I engaged with your defamation in good faith. You provided no evidence of any bad behaviour so there is nothing more to discuss than you apologizing. I won't be engaging further. Edit: wow you even reposted the original hit piece.

Please explain for each example I posted, including those from the original article[1], how it isn't a firsthand account, and why the behavior is acceptable.

I went to the work of providing specific examples, it would be polite for you to specifically and precisely explain why you think they're bad. You have repeatedly avoided giving specific reasons that the examples I provided are acceptable, instead you have claimed that these examples aren't evidence, with no accompanying reason. This is not a good faith interaction by you. It's avoidance of actually addressing the evidence provided. Since it's so bad, addressing it should be quick and easy.

Edit:

> Edit: wow you even reposted the original hit piece.

Of course I did! My statement was that the original article referenced firsthand accounts. That's a true statement. There are attributed quotes. Do you deny the existence of those quotes? Like, they're there in the article.

[1]: quoted in this https://medium.com/@selamjie/remove-richard-stallman-appendi...

Re: No Radical Changes in GNU Project

#147

Post by [deleted] »

joshuamorton wrote: post #145
hdfbdtbcdg wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These are not firsthand accounts. Nor are they accounts of actual bad behavior. There is nothing in what you posted that merits me believing or disbelieving. I engaged with your defamation in good faith. You provided no evidence of any bad behaviour so there is nothing more to discuss than you apologizing. I won't be engaging further. Edit: wow you even reposted the original hit piece.

Please explain for each example I posted, including those from the original article[1], how it isn't a firsthand account, and why the behavior is acceptable. I went to the work of providing specific examples, it would be polite for you to specifically and precisely explain why you think they're bad. You have repeatedly avoided giving specific reasons that the examples I provided are acceptable, instead you have claim…

[deleted]

Re: No Radical Changes in GNU Project

#148

Post by grumbel »

tjr wrote: post #55
shadowgovt wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a complicated question, but I think the real decline of true free software commons was probably around the time cloud services proved so valuable. Cloud provides huge leverage to some end-users for getting to the goal of doing the thing they want to do with the software, and it utterly side-steps the Four Freedoms via the simple expedient of "You don't own the hardware the software runs on." GNU hasn't had an an…

I think the GNU response is more subtle than "boycott it". In particular, I do not get the impression that GNU opposes someone using software that runs on someone else's server machine in general . One obvious example would be an HTTP server with PHP scripts, or whatever. The software running on the remote server could even be proprietary software! For the sake of the person running the server, they should not use pr…

> I do not get the impression that GNU opposes someone using software that runs on someone else's server machine in general.

That's my impression as well, but to me that is an area where the FSF/GNU/RMS is fundamentally wrong. Not having control over the software and, even more important, the data that is on the server is the main reason why everything is going to shit. Yet the FSF doesn't seem to care, specifically this reply from RMS on the topic:

https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/repo-criteria-discuss/201...

All the privacy, censorship and other problems with Facebook, Youtube, smartphones and so on are rooted in somebody else controlling the server, and in turn the software and the data.

If the Javascript is GPL or not is essentially irrelevant, yet that is the main problem the FSF focuses on. I can understand how the FSF would came to that conclusion (by following their philosophy that has been outdated for decades), but it completely misses all the problems people have day to day on the Internet.

How data is managed and controlled on the server should be the main concern of the FSF today, but there has been shockingly little effort in that area. I am not even talking in terms of actual software solutions, but just general philosophy discussions. The few bits of effort we have seen, such as the AGPL, not only don't go anywhere far enough, it wasn't even originally created by the FSF. And their repo-criteria completely miss the point.

Ironically, even the slow moving field of politics went to overtake the FSF here. The GDPR goes far and beyond anything I have ever seen by the FSF when it comes to data freedom.

I really wish the FSF would put more effort into solving and discussing todays problem, instead of solving RMS's printer driver problems from the 80s, since really, that problem has been essentially solved. We have today completely Free Software OSs that everybody can use. The problems that remain are outside the realms of the classic four software freedoms.

Re: No Radical Changes in GNU Project

#149

Post by grumbel »

sedachv wrote: post #91
shadowgovt wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a complicated question, but I think the real decline of true free software commons was probably around the time cloud services proved so valuable. Cloud provides huge leverage to some end-users for getting to the goal of doing the thing they want to do with the software, and it utterly side-steps the Four Freedoms via the simple expedient of "You don't own the hardware the software runs on." GNU hasn't had an an…

> GNU hasn't had an answer to this besides "boycott it," which feels an awful lot like horse-riders suggesting we deal with the problems with cars by never owning or supporting ownership of them. That is a really unfair way to describe things: https://www.gnu.org/software/librejs/ https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html The real problem is corporate propaganda to discourage people from licensing their work unde…

Their "answer" misses the problem. A cloud solution running AGPL is not any more free than one that doesn't. The issue is Tivoization 2.0. The AGPL allows you to get the source, but since you don't own the server, you can't really do much with it.

Same with the Javascript, sure, you get the source in a non-obscured fashion, but that doesn't buy you anything, the data is still on the server and how much or how little you are allowed to access it is controlled by the owner of the server, not that bit of Javascript.

To bring Free Software into the cloud age you would need licenses that go beyond the source code and regulate how the data on the server is stored, manipulated and distributed. The European GDPR does that and there are a tiny few licenses like the Open Data Commons Open Database License that do that. But from the FSF there has been pretty much nothing.

Re: No Radical Changes in GNU Project

#150

Post by teddyh »

microtherion wrote: post #133
teddyh wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In fact, he seems to have changed his mind about that as early as 2016: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biograp... (Credit for finding this goes to dependenttypes: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21092184 )

"Not endorsing pedophilia since 2016" is not exactly the ringing character endorsement you might consider it to be.

Ringing character endorsement? It wasn’t meant to be. It was meant to correct the seemlingly common misconception that RMS changed his mind only recently after the fact, when in reality he seems to have changed his mind many years ago.

Also, should people be condemned for opinions they used to hold, even if they changed them relatively recently? If so, what is the point of anybody changing their mind on any topic, if they’re going to get nailed for any opinion they have ever held? What kind of world would that make, where nobody could be expected to change their mind on anything?

Post reply on HN