Libreboot – Defend Richard Stallman • Hacker News Board

Re: Libreboot – Defend Richard Stallman

#161

Post by DetroitThrow » Wed, Mar 31, 2021, 1:18 PM UTC

caslon wrote: post #148

DetroitThrow wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"though it kind of does" It absolutely does not, and this has been understood throughout my entire time contributing to free software and participating in the movement. You can't just create purity tests for free software as a convenient way to demonize people when there's literally decades of core contributors and champions who'd then fall in this brand new exclusion zone.

It's hardly an arbitrary purity test; if you see proprietary software as immoral, and the free software movement as a moral movement, then people who release proprietary software aren't part of the free software movement. This has been the case since the ideological genesis of the movement. You seem to be arguing in favor of the open source movement, which is a distinct one, with far different goals (rather than bein…

"It's hardly an arbitrary purity test"

I never said it was, I said it was one which seems to have been created on the spot as a convenient way to demonize "others" given that the moral movement has never been morally bankrupt enough for the last few decades to exclude individuals based on their participation in proprietary projects.

And no, I'm very explicitly talking about the free software movement, not open source. There is nothing in my statements to suggest that I was talking about open source other than that I'm yet another that didn't meet your ahistorical and anti-freedom purity test.

Re: Libreboot – Defend Richard Stallman

#162

Post by caslon » Wed, Mar 31, 2021, 1:20 PM UTC

DetroitThrow wrote: post #161

caslon wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's hardly an arbitrary purity test; if you see proprietary software as immoral, and the free software movement as a moral movement, then people who release proprietary software aren't part of the free software movement. This has been the case since the ideological genesis of the movement. You seem to be arguing in favor of the open source movement, which is a distinct one, with far different goals (rather than bein…

"It's hardly an arbitrary purity test" I never said it was, I said it was one which seems to have been created on the spot as a convenient way to demonize "others" given that the moral movement has never been morally bankrupt enough for the last few decades to exclude individuals based on their participation in proprietary projects. And no, I'm very explicitly talking about the free software movement, not open source…

> I never said it was, I said it was one which seems to have been created on the spot as a convenient way to demonize "others" given that the moral movement has never been morally bankrupt enough for the last few decades to exclude individuals based on their participation in proprietary projects.

Free software has always been a moral movement; it's those who promote proprietary software that are morally bankrupt.

> And no, I'm very explicitly talking about the free software movement, not open source. There is nothing in my statements to suggest that I was talking about open source other than that I'm yet another that didn't meet your ahistorical and anti-freedom purity test.

Being against proprietary software is pro-freedom, and nothing I'm saying is ahistorical. You're pretty clearly conflating the open source movement (based around profiteering and not caring about freedom) with the free software movement (has always been about morality).

Re: Libreboot – Defend Richard Stallman

#163

Post by jaywalk » Wed, Mar 31, 2021, 1:20 PM UTC

Latty wrote: post #141

jstanley wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it doesn't mean he doesn't have bad ideas about other things (like consent) But does he have bad ideas about things like consent?

Well, my point was that this article actively avoids answering that question. From what I can see, yes, he does. He seems to take the position that children should be able consent to sex with adults, which fundamentally makes contributors less safe, and in my opinion is worthy of removing him from positions of leadership. His comments (from https://web.archive.org/web/20210325013844/https://stallman.... ): > Due to t…

> fundamentally makes contributors less safe

Please explain the actual link between contributing to free software and sex with minors.

Re: Libreboot – Defend Richard Stallman

#164

Post by caslon » Wed, Mar 31, 2021, 1:21 PM UTC

Glavnokoman wrote: post #154

caslon wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He funded a group trying to prevent homosexuals from having equal rights with everyone else. Regardless of your ethical views on the subject of homosexuals, it's wrong to try and prevent anyone from having freedom, especially in such an undemocratic way as throwing money at it.

That is pretty sick description of what happened. To be precise he donated 1000$ to some org which opposes the gay marriage.

I described it completely accurately.

Re: Libreboot – Defend Richard Stallman

#165

Post by no-s » Wed, Mar 31, 2021, 1:22 PM UTC

sgt wrote: post #77

mseepgood wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How else do you refer to non-binary people?

He or she, depending what the person looks like. I'm not going to use they/them, the same way I'm not going to force someone else to refer to me as "my lord".

> He or she, depending what the person looks like.

Well, that may be perceived as insulting by the addressee, and they might have a point. The previous consensus was not to presume offense. Too bad we can't all efficiently communicate in a polite language free from irrelevant embedded idiosyncratic perceptual distinctions, so as to avoid giving and taking offense. Yet for some reason we are required instead to recognize new distinctive pronouns and use them consistently or face ostracism. A forced consensus is a false consensus.

> the same way I'm not going to force someone else to refer to me as "my lord".

And there's a good point. Forcing others to use a form of arbitrarily self-determined address and banding together to ostracize and punish the uncooperative is uncomfortably similar to just plain old elitist bullying. I understand the thesis is to show respect for the addressee, but insisting and threatening is to transform it into a transaction of dominance and submission. Some argue that to respond by identifying as a surface-to-air missile is just a glib insult, not satirical criticism of the implied superiority expressed as reductio ad absurdum.

Re: Libreboot – Defend Richard Stallman

#166

Post by Latty » Wed, Mar 31, 2021, 1:24 PM UTC

jaywalk wrote: post #163

Latty wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, my point was that this article actively avoids answering that question. From what I can see, yes, he does. He seems to take the position that children should be able consent to sex with adults, which fundamentally makes contributors less safe, and in my opinion is worthy of removing him from positions of leadership. His comments (from https://web.archive.org/web/20210325013844/https://stallman.... ): > Due to t…

> fundamentally makes contributors less safe Please explain the actual link between contributing to free software and sex with minors.

I contributed to plenty of open source projects as a minor, interacting with maintainers and other people in the communities around them.

Grooming and abuse is a real problem. If Stallman thinks it can be justified to sleep with a child if consent is given, then he wouldn't act to defend a child in that situation if they were being preyed upon unless it was clear to him it was abuse.

That's not good enough. There should be no wiggle room because abusers can abuse that. That's why these laws exist, and that is the standard we should hold projects to, to allow children to safely contribute.

Re: Libreboot – Defend Richard Stallman

#167

Post by iocert » Wed, Mar 31, 2021, 1:27 PM UTC

john37386 wrote: post #97

What is the reason for flagging this post?

1) There are too many pro-Stallman views here, so discussions must be censored.

2) Some people are tired of the discussions, which is sad. I think corporate influence on free software is an important topic.

Re: Libreboot – Defend Richard Stallman

#168

Post by koonsolo » Wed, Mar 31, 2021, 1:29 PM UTC

Latty wrote: post #146

koonsolo wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Show me the text where he has a bad idea about consent. And then show me how his statements are false. I guess you refer to this text: On MIT's internal Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL) listerv, Stallman had seen the description of a protest of Marvin Minsky which said Minsky was "accused of assaulting" one of Epstein's victims. Stallman argued that "the most plausible scenario" is that…

My point was that this article makes no attempt to address those issues. However, I do happen to believe there is an issue, as I outlined in a sibling comment ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26646676 ). Statutory rape law is a trade-off because proving sexual assault is hard and we value protecting children from abusers more than we value letting people sleep with children. If you disagree with that, yes, I be…

First of all a "child" is defined as the age between birth and puberty, so you might want to update your own usage of that word.

Secondly, the bigger part of the world seems to agree nowadays that 16 seems to be a reasonable age of consent.

US is very conservative in this regards, depending on the state. So basically it's OK that a 50 year old has sex with a 16 year old in 1 state, but when you cross the state border, two 17 year olds having sex is illegal.

So you claim that a person pointing out these absurdities should not be allowed in a leadership position?

Re: Libreboot – Defend Richard Stallman

#169

Post by themaninthedark » Wed, Mar 31, 2021, 1:33 PM UTC

EdwardDiego wrote: post #41

lelanthran wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Free speech never implied freedom from consequences though - this isn't the government suppressing RMS, it's people reacting to his free speech and deciding that they don't like it. Good point - looking at the petitions, it's become obvious that the people deciding they don't like RMS's speeach are in the minority. Is it worth firing an entire board because a minority feels insecure? On your mind, is tyranny by the…

...just because it's a minority doesn't mean it's inherently wrong. At the risk of the ghost of Godwin's, black people were a minority in the 1960s, yet still had a good point about their aims. And as for whether or not the board chooses to listen to the feedback, entirely up to them and their governance structure.

We are not talking about racial minorities fighting of equal rights, we are talking about a small group of people inside(and outside) of an organization that is attempting a coup.

How small of a minority should be allowed to dictate that?

Re: Libreboot – Defend Richard Stallman

#170

Post by geofft » Wed, Mar 31, 2021, 1:35 PM UTC

caslon wrote: post #145

geofft wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pre-acquisition Red Hat was awfully excited about supporting proprietary software whose intended purpose is to kill people: https://www.newsobserver.com/news/business/article213676919.... My point here is that you can always pick a partitioning and then backsolve ethical principles that support that partitioning. "If you work for a company that sells proprietary software, you're ineligible to be a leading voice in th…

Thanks for pointing this out, I had forgotten this! Yeah, Red Hat has been rotten for a long time. I don't like it; I think it's been a terrible company for many years; but I do think it's never released non-free software, which was the bit I am mostly concerned about on this particular topic. I do agree that they have no real moral ground to stand on. Forgive me for pointing this out, but given they're one of the or…

Yeah sorry about the stealth-edit, I realize the first sentence by itself sounded kind of like a gotcha and I wanted to make a more substantial point :)

I'm referencing the GCC steering committee - IBM (actual IBM, not just Red Hat, mostly because they support GCC on their mainframes) and Google (presumably for gold, gccgo, etc.) have been involved for many years. (I don't mean they have seats on the FSF board or anything, that may have been unclear. I just mean their employees have leadership positions in a flagship GNU project, and at least for those two employees, their involvement in GCC is even part of their day job.)

I see your point about proprietary software that has the risk of killing people when it goes wrong, but what I'm claiming is that this is a sensible first-principles argument that is being newly introduced. When Red Hat contracts for the US defense apparatus - their largest customer - they know full well they're supporting proprietary and classified code, whose intended purpose is killing people, running on RHEL. (And given that RHEL's business model is support, I would seriously doubt that they never see/access/work on the proprietary code - I would bet they have engineers with clearance to help out with that code.) I think you can make an equally-sensible first-principles argument that this, too, is incompatible with the principles of the free software movement.

But we haven't made that argument, and we've been fine with Red Hat for years, and we've been fine with IBM for years (who has customers that are so distasteful that they had to negotiate an exception for JSON's "This software shall be used for Good, not Evil" license :) ), etc. I'm actually super interested in having that discussion and seeing where it leads, because I think there hasn't been much discussion of free software ethics in the last many years. But I think we can't retroactively apply it to decide who really is able to be a voice for the free software movement and who isn't.