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

A Critique of the Open Letter Calling for the Removal of RMS

meribold.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 274 posts

Re: A Critique of the Open Letter Calling for the Removal of RMS

#141

Post by vidarh »

DarkCrusader2 wrote: post #98

> A competing letter in support of RMS exists and has accumulated considerably more signatures than the letter condemning RMS. > In response someone created a Chrome extension that marks repositories owned by a signatory of this support letter with red text on GitHub. This is incredible worrying. This is basically maintaining a repository of people with "incorrect" opinions. How long before such repositories are inte…

Frankly, I wish there was a list of people using that Chrome extension, so they could face the same treatment they are giving others.

Ultimately I think things like that extension will do more to drive people to sign the letter in support of RMS than deter people, because the signal it sends is to me far worse than anything RMS has been accused of.

Re: A Critique of the Open Letter Calling for the Removal of RMS

#142

Post by s9w »

Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #109

> in response someone created a Chrome extension that marks repositories owned by a signatory of this support letter with red text on GitHub Ok. I think I need this extension for Firefox, to know what software is written by decent people.

https://github.com/sticks-stuff/highlight-RMS-supporters

Re: A Critique of the Open Letter Calling for the Removal of RMS

#143

Post by mhd »

henrikschroder wrote: post #32

> The primary author of the open letter, Molly de Blanc, writes on her personal blog: > > There is no space to argue over whether a comment was transphobic – if it hurt a trans person then it is transphobic and it is unacceptable. Ah, postmodernism! Where the words are made up, and intent doesn't matter!

So anything non-deontological is postmodern?

Re: A Critique of the Open Letter Calling for the Removal of RMS

#144

Post by loup-vaillant »

simion314 wrote: post #55
KingOfCoders wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because there has been this "out of context" argument used several times in this discussion, and I don't understand it: Can you explain to me how the context of [1] and [4] makes [2] and [3] - "is having that photo is not hurting everyone" - sound different than without the context? "[1] This "child pornography" might be a photo of yourself or your lover that the two of you shared. [2] It might be an image of a sexua…

Maybe if you and your girlfriend are 17 , she sends you a picture, then next day you are 18 but her picture is of a 17 years old so you are a criminal now. So make CP illegal, find the criminals if you can, stop the commerce with such material , my paranoia is that I could be setup by police, or by someone that does not like me or even by a fucking troll. In today world such an accusation can destroy your life.

There have been cases of both the girl and boy being about 16 and sexting each other, and still being convicted for transmission of child pornography. I recall a specific case where the girl's father was pissed off when he discovered what they did, and used the photos to drag the boy to court. The boy is now registered as a "sex offender", same as a child rapist.

Strange how the law sees nothing wrong with two teens fucking each other, but somehow sending nude photos of themselves to each other is a felony.

Re: A Critique of the Open Letter Calling for the Removal of RMS

#145

Post by d_tr »

AndyMcConachie wrote: post #9

RMS is a terrible spokesperson for free software. I wish the FSF could just fire him and move on. How do I know he's a terrible spokesperson? Because we're talking about him and not about free software. It's that simple. I want the FSF to focus on free software and I want the discourse around the FSF to be about free software. Not RMS.

We are currently talking about an attempt to crucify him by mob rule, which is not only about him, but about a dangerous trend in society.

Re: A Critique of the Open Letter Calling for the Removal of RMS

#146

Post by insert_coin »

DarkCrusader2 wrote: post #98

> A competing letter in support of RMS exists and has accumulated considerably more signatures than the letter condemning RMS. > In response someone created a Chrome extension that marks repositories owned by a signatory of this support letter with red text on GitHub. This is incredible worrying. This is basically maintaining a repository of people with "incorrect" opinions. How long before such repositories are inte…

Freedom of speech has lost, freedom of thought is next and they are coming for it fast.

Re: A Critique of the Open Letter Calling for the Removal of RMS

#148

Post by mehdix »

This reminded me of the Opal incident: https://github.com/opal/opal/issues/941.

Regardless of the letter, I have a little story to add. I first heard of RMS back when I was living in an isolated land on this planet (there are only a few of them). A self-made hacker, which was to some extent my mentor told of his communications with him, since he was active in some GNU projects and RMS had assisted him with publishing his work. Not much, but it was a positive move in support of a young man in a remote place.

Re: A Critique of the Open Letter Calling for the Removal of RMS

#150

Post by sokoloff »

KingOfCoders wrote: post #138
sokoloff wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that #3 is one of rms’s terribly ineffective and perhaps self-destructive “technically correct” arguments. I read that he’s intending the extremely literal meaning of “having” as he often takes extremely precise, literal meanings that make his writings more difficult to understand than would otherwise be. Let me be clear: I’m not in any way supporting child porn, but I can see how rms could hold a view that m…

Like I wrote in another comment, this would split the fact of "stealing" from "having a stolen object". Like "having the stolen object" does not harm anyone, the taking away is the harm done. I don't think this argument flies with anyone - it did not fly in kindergarten for me - and I'm not sure if RMS sees the world this way or it's only with child porn. To play devils advocate here: Taking GPL code into your produc…

Having a stolen physical object of mine means I don’t have it. You are literally continuing to deprive me of the property by merely having it.

I can imagine reading an rms essay on how coming into my yard and taking my ladder without permission, using it without damage, and returning it before I noticed it missing imposed no harm upon me, so the taking of my property was not wrong, though the ongoing possession would be.

To your later-added devil’s advocate paragraph: rms is fine with you selling a product that includes GPL code and as far as I can tell always has been. What he’s not fine with is you imposing restrictions that prevent someone that you do sell the code to from effectively modifying or further sharing that product.

Post reply on HN