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

211–220 of 253 posts

Re: Libreboot – Defend Richard Stallman

#211

Post by Andrew_nenakhov »

spamizbad wrote: post #104

Give me a break. Look, if you don't want his personal conduct to factor in, let's look at the percipidous decline in free software (and the rise of copy right BSD/MIT/Apache open source software). Years ago, LLVM was offered to Stallman and the FSF. Due to the idiosyncratic way he chooses to handle his email, he never even got their message. As such: LLVM fell under a BSD-style license. Clang was built on top of it,…

> As such: LLVM fell under a BSD-style license

An extremely silly tall tale.

When we released our software under GNU GPL licenses, we didn't write rms to ask for his permission or blessing. We just did release it under the license we felt was best for our vision.

So if llvm was released under different license, this is fully on llvm author. They had reasons to release it under the license that fitted them best.

Re: Libreboot – Defend Richard Stallman

#212

Post by sh1989 »

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 wrote a proper response to this, then deleted it.

Because seriously, you're asking why a clear demonstration of how someone doesn't understand/is ignorant of power dynamics isn't a sign that person shouldn't be anywhere near positions of power and influence?

And maybe the explaining that needs to be done is yourself.

Re: Libreboot – Defend Richard Stallman

#213

Post by throwaways885 »

yxhuvud wrote: post #187
lelanthran wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Eh, you need to revisit your history lessons. There was plenty of cancel culture against blacks and there was also A LOT of violence used against them when the black protested against it and against their treatment. Certainly, but supporters of the movement were not cancelled simply by association. This movement is literally trying to silence anyone who even associates with their target.

> supporters of the movement were not cancelled simply by association. What you are saying is the equal to claiming that no black people were fired or otherwise hurt in situations not directly related to protests because they were taking part of the movement. I'm sorry, but that is simply laughable as not only was that common, it was also fairly common for the Klan to lynch black people that was part of it. There is…

Historical lynchings do not justify current day lynchings.

Re: Libreboot – Defend Richard Stallman

#214

Post by throwaways885 »

EdwardDiego wrote: post #22
throwaways885 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 equiva…

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. That's how it works.

No, freedom of speech really does imply some protections, such as not getting instantly fired or jailed for your opinions.

As another commenter pointed out, the fact we are having a debate on the subject is the correct way to resolve this situation and decide if RMS should continue to represent the FSF. The larger issue is a tiny minority have decided it is unacceptable to have this conversation and he must go ASAP.

Re: Libreboot – Defend Richard Stallman

#215

Post by tln750 »

I see the hatred of companies for the GPL as one of the main issues here. GCC was a thorn in the plans envisioned by companies to take advantage of FOSS. LLVM was a godsend and it allowed companies to spread the influence of their new software methodology: use the vast army of 'open source' coders as unpaid workers to enrich themselves. Free bug reporters, free testers, free code contributors. Companies can simply take and close the non-copyleft code, add some secret sauce and use it to augment their deplorable business practices like sucking up user information, like Google, or simply sell it and laugh all the way to the bank, like Nvidia.

I think we are currently experiencing the old EEE tactics in various ways. Embrace Linux, use it to build an ecosystem, extinguish it with non-copyleft Fuchsia. Embrace GCC, use it to build stuff, extinguish it with non-copyleft LLVM. Android is almost completely rid of GPL code at this point - the kernel is the main piece remaining. I wonder when programmers and hackers will wake up and see how their time and work are being usurped.

Re: Libreboot – Defend Richard Stallman

#216

Post by dang »

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…

Your comment breaks several of the site guidelines. Would you mind reviewing them and sticking to the rules? This is exactly the kind of thing they ask you not to post here.

Everyone needs to follow the rules regardless of: (1) how right they are; (2) how right they feel they are; (3) how wrong someone is; (4) how wrong they feel someone is; and/or (5) how provocative something was.

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

Re: Libreboot – Defend Richard Stallman

#217

Post by geofft »

fsflover wrote: post #197
geofft wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is the FSF's opinion that "open source" misses the point, and it's pretty self-serving for them to have that opinion, because they don't control the term . The OSI has in recent years been an ardent defender of free software principles, holding fast to the Debian Free Software Guidelines despite corporate pressure to approve various licenses where the source is technically open but fundamental freedoms are gone. A…

> but the corporate interests don't want people to think about fundamental freedoms anyway, so they wouldn't mind. It's therefore very important that someone is out there saying that you can't be "open source" either without the fundamental freedoms, and the OSI has been doing exactly that. The community should force the companies to do what we want, not what the companies prefer. We want that free software be called…

I agree that the community should force the companies to do what we want. How do you propose we do that? Is the FSF doing that?

Re: Libreboot – Defend Richard Stallman

#218

Post by krapp »

throwaways885 wrote: post #214
EdwardDiego wrote: post #22

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. That's how it works.

No, freedom of speech really does imply some protections, such as not getting instantly fired or jailed for your opinions. As another commenter pointed out, the fact we are having a debate on the subject is the correct way to resolve this situation and decide if RMS should continue to represent the FSF. The larger issue is a tiny minority have decided it is unacceptable to have this conversation and he must go ASAP.

> the fact we are having a debate on the subject is the correct way to resolve this situation and decide if RMS should continue to represent the FSF.

Was there a debate over whether Stallman should have been brought back onto the board of directors? No. Nor was there a vote. It just happened. But I guess democracy doesn't matter when it's the divine right of kings?

Re: Libreboot – Defend Richard Stallman

#219

Post by shadowgovt »

ttt0 wrote: post #186
DetroitThrow wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Does not in any way imply that people not defending RMS wish to destroy Free Software. From the statement it is understood that you are defending free software by defending Stallman, and those attacking Stallman are attacking free software. At best this is hyperbolic, abrasive language that makes bystanders at least complacent as the destruction of free software happens by some "Orwellian" conspiracy. Their statemen…

It's not just RMS, they call for the removal of the entire FSF board.

An understandable call, since that is the board which (with no explanation) has re-instated Stallman.

An organization's supporters interpret bad leadership as damage and route around it.

Re: Libreboot – Defend Richard Stallman

#220

Post by tomcooks »

bombcar wrote: post #110
tomcooks wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can confirm. He even replied to me when, as a noob kid, asked him whether I should choose vi or emacs as my editor.

Which did he say?

Trying to remember (a very long time passed), he was very kind and patiently told me that it's important to use the tool that works best for you. He added that for obvious reasons he uses emacs.

A proper saint.

Post reply on HN