Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software (2007) • Hacker News Board

Re: Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software (2007)

#171

Post by eesmith » Tue, Sep 24, 2019, 7:41 AM UTC

doesnt_know wrote: post #169

eesmith wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"when you purchase GPL" .. sure. But there's nothing to force me to provide you with the software until you've given me money. Even if I used someone else's GPL'ed software in my software, I can simply not distribute it until someone gives me $100,000. "When you purchase access to an open-data paper" Some provisos first. Some papers are gratis, and don't require being purchased. (Eg, author-pays papers.) Also, I thin…

> I can simply not distribute it Of course, you haven't infringed on anyone's freedom yet, there are no users. I guess the thing is if you massively overcharge without providing any corresponding service of value the first person that purchases it has the option to throw the source code up on the internet and it can be forked. I guess you also have to find a buyer that is willing to pay you the large sum while also k…

Exactly! I am free to talk about it, boast about it, write papers about it, etc.

While, to go back to my first comment:

"If you have useful data, the free software principles say that you might as well charge a lot of money for it, which is not what most chemists and biologists think of in discussion of data openness."

Re: Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software (2007)

#172

Post by hdfbdtbcdg » Tue, Sep 24, 2019, 7:44 AM UTC

marijn wrote: post #157

sn41 wrote: post #7

In the years to come, I believe free software will be recognised as one of the paradigmatic changes in how science itself is done. Now chemists and biologists have started talking about making data openly available and so forth. It's a shame that RMS has to spout forth on every issue, and in the current climate of outrage, science may have lost an important transformational voice. I think as a society, we need to cal…

He wasn't blacklisted for committing thought crime. The dumb Epstein email triggered a reevaluation of his consistent creepy and inappropriate behavior against current community standards, which resulted in a large part of the community deciding they didn't want anything to do with him anymore. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from social consequences.

There is another large part of the community that wants no part in the community as a result of events like this. I guess we will end up with two communities one focused on software the other focused on social justice (wokeware). It looks like the social justice community will get the code and trademarks. Fortunately thanks to RMS the code is available to fork.

I guess things aren't organised yet but I and others I have spoken to IRL have already stopped interacting with certain projects.

I was wondering if some of the community's thought leaders might jump ship - but I guess they will be purged anyway so that should help!

EDIT: Would any downvoters care to comment on why they think this won't happen? Do they think we will continue to participate against our will...

Re: Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software (2007)

#173

Post by craigsmansion » Tue, Sep 24, 2019, 7:44 AM UTC

ariabuckles wrote: post #55

sprafa wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Didn’t know about this. Where can I read more about his behaviour around women?

https://geekfeminism.wikia.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman and https://medium.com/@selamie/remove-richard-stallman-appendix... are good starting points; I also saw threads about it from women MIT alumns on twitter.

Those are terrible starting points.

For the actual background on the current chain of events at MIT:

https://sterling-archermedes.github.io/index.html

For earlier allegations, take the original sources including quotes and references:

https://stallman.org/archives/2006-mar-jun.html

(note: there are many more archives. This also gives you an idea of the effort it must have taken to find those few "damning" posts, and to skew those out of context)

Re: Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software (2007)

#174

Post by diffeomorphism » Tue, Sep 24, 2019, 7:50 AM UTC

millstone wrote: post #67

knocte wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's because you're seeing the results of the license from the perspective of the developer, not the user.

For a user who is not a software developer, what is the practical difference between GPL and MIT? Is there one?

> For a user who is not a software developer,

For a reader who is not a journalist, what is the value of free speech? Is there one?

Re: Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software (2007)

#175

Post by distances » Tue, Sep 24, 2019, 7:51 AM UTC

tzs wrote: post #122

tjpnz wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It's a shame that RMS has to spout forth on every issue, and in the current climate of outrage, science may have lost an important transformational voice. The four freedoms are truly revolutionary and have grown on me over the years. If he had been a bit more focussed and perhaps even a little pragmatic it wouldn't be hard to view him as a Steve Jobs or Bill Gates like figure. At the very least we would be having co…

> The four freedoms are truly revolutionary and have grown on me over the years. If he had been a bit more focussed and perhaps even a little pragmatic it wouldn't be hard to view him as a Steve Jobs or Bill Gates like figure. If he had been a lot more pragmatic, he probably could have put the whole free software thing on hold for 20 years, and been one of the early microcomputer billionaires either alongside Jobs an…

> If he had been a lot more pragmatic, he probably could have put the whole free software thing on hold for 20 years, and been one of the early microcomputer billionaires

I think you're mistaken about the chances of becoming that wealthy. If anything, I'd guess it's more likely now than decades ago. Planning what to do after becoming a billionaire is akin to spending your lottery jackpot before winning it.

Re: Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software (2007)

#176

Post by craigsmansion » Tue, Sep 24, 2019, 7:52 AM UTC

hinkley wrote: post #71

cat_plus_plus wrote: post #3

That's what makes me so furious at the morons who deplatformed RMS over some silly devil's advocate defense of Minsky on an internal mailing list. The guy has an important idea that he put most of his life into developing. In the process, he made programming much more inclusive than anyone could dream about in the days of proprietary operating system with compilers that sold for thousands of dollars. So even if havin…

Until the latest stink I wasn't even aware that RMS still had a platform. I haven't heard from him in probably 15 years. That may be a good thing. FSF isn't about Richard Stallman. And some of the "kids" that ran him out of town know to keep plants at their desks because it turns out he's kind of a creep around young women, and also afraid of plants. None of that information has anything to do with mailing lists. The…

> and also afraid of plants

from someone who actually worked with him:

"p.s.: In the closet-sized "office" Bushnell, McGrath, and I shared for a time we did have some spider plants as part of a running silly joke. They did not actually scare RMS away OF COURSE"

https://archive.is/7qepC

Re: Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software (2007)

#177

Post by concordDance » Tue, Sep 24, 2019, 7:52 AM UTC

4bpp wrote: post #95

michannne wrote: post #38

It seems this thread and others like it has fueled a controversial honeypot, as some users are mass-downvoting comments that are perfectly in line with the content posted, simply because they stand for or against ousting Stallman, and others are doing the opposite -- mass upvoting comments that align with their predisposed view of the situation. I'd like to take sometime however to reiterate that freedom applies to a…

But consider the possibility that this might be perfectly rational behaviour for people who care about some side of the cause (even if it comes at the expense of HN as a forum): the victory condition for any belief is to be so universally accepted that its negation can not be expressed in polite company. If you come into a HN thread believing X and then see that every post stating X got downvoted into oblivion, maybe…

> the victory condition for any belief is to be so universally accepted that its negation can not be expressed in polite company.

What about the belief that any belief should be expressable in polite company, including the negatiom of this belief?

Re: Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software (2007)

#178

Post by atoav » Tue, Sep 24, 2019, 7:53 AM UTC

Smithalicious wrote: post #162

marijn wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He wasn't blacklisted for committing thought crime. The dumb Epstein email triggered a reevaluation of his consistent creepy and inappropriate behavior against current community standards, which resulted in a large part of the community deciding they didn't want anything to do with him anymore. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from social consequences.

Amazing how whenever someone does something controversial and gets forced out soon afterwards, it's never the thing they said, but "consistent creepy and inappropriate behavior" based on 10 year old anecdotes that suddenly appear out of nowhere... I'd think that if someone was "consistently" creepy and inappropriate, there would be a pretty good public record for that, but what do I know? EDIT: Let me give a bit more…

One could also see it the other way round: because of the importance of his figure people were more willing to keep their mouths shut and look the other way. Once the tipping point is reached, they don’t see any reason to do that anymore. This is why medival monarchs had jesters to tell them what is really going on.

The right thing to do of course is to speek truth to power openly and before everybody else does it, but this could come with serious consequences for the person speaking up. This is why they’d only do it once they are 100% sure they didn’t misread the situation, the thing that happened was actually big enough and they are willing to carry the consequences this could have for free software.

In other words: people in positions like Stallman can get away with much more than any regular guy, which means they should be extra considerate of their role and their environment if they care about the effects their own power and fame has on it. If it everybody steps up now, it means there was clearly a disconnect between his self image and what his environment thought about him.

Re: Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software (2007)

#179

Post by distances » Tue, Sep 24, 2019, 7:53 AM UTC

Smithalicious wrote: post #162

marijn wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He wasn't blacklisted for committing thought crime. The dumb Epstein email triggered a reevaluation of his consistent creepy and inappropriate behavior against current community standards, which resulted in a large part of the community deciding they didn't want anything to do with him anymore. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from social consequences.

Amazing how whenever someone does something controversial and gets forced out soon afterwards, it's never the thing they said, but "consistent creepy and inappropriate behavior" based on 10 year old anecdotes that suddenly appear out of nowhere... I'd think that if someone was "consistently" creepy and inappropriate, there would be a pretty good public record for that, but what do I know? EDIT: Let me give a bit more…

There are accounts of his behaviour going back decades, so I'm not sure what you're claiming with this?

Re: Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software (2007)

#180

Post by dTal » Tue, Sep 24, 2019, 7:53 AM UTC

grawprog wrote: post #19

sn41 wrote: post #7

In the years to come, I believe free software will be recognised as one of the paradigmatic changes in how science itself is done. Now chemists and biologists have started talking about making data openly available and so forth. It's a shame that RMS has to spout forth on every issue, and in the current climate of outrage, science may have lost an important transformational voice. I think as a society, we need to cal…

One of the things that really soured me to working as a biologist was being told the data we collected would not be allowed to be made freely available, as we originally proposed and was accepted in our grant proposal. Instead it would be locked away in a government database, available for a fee despite the data being collected using tax dollars, after we'd been working for over a year and a half on the project and h…

Wait, so if research is government funded, said government can just... suppress results? That's horrifyingly corrupt. That right there is a scandal.

In that position, I would be tempted to take a stand and release the data as originally planned, while blowing the lid off the whole corruption. Write in big letters on the website "THE GOVERNMENT DOESN'T WANT YOU TO SEE THIS". If you're worried about your career... why? What is the point of your career as a scientist if you won't take a stand like that?