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

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

gnu.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 426 posts

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

#231

Post by lostjohnny »

mav3rick wrote: post #60
4bpp wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you believe he has alienated more women from FOSS than he has inspired people to contribute to it? Considering the frankly extremely low percentage of female contributors, it seems that he would have had to personally (considering that all of the creepy behaviours listed seem to be limited to his meatspace circles) alienate multiple women for every one woman who did wind up working on in free software, which seems…

You are okay forgiving people as long as their "net impact" is positive? Is it okay for someone to murder a person if they saved more than one life before ?

> Is it okay for someone to murder a person if they saved more than one life before ?

Murder is a crime.

Where is the crime here?

It is ok to let go a "fuck you" if that persons did good before.

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

#232

Post by lostjohnny »

mav3rick wrote: post #108
4bpp wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In general, yes. Murder is a very peculiar case that is hardly suitable to be the benchmark for building our intuitions about trading off harm in general: human lives are not fungible, murder is not reversible, the victims do not generally get a meaningful way of influencing how the murder impacts them etc., all properties that do not apply in the case of being put off a pursuit like FOSS. (Even then, we're sometimes…

Also notice how it is almost always okay for "women" to be discouraged and counted as collateral damage. The fact that you do that tells me a lot.

> "women" to be discouraged and counted as collateral damage

this never happened though.

According not to me, but to Thomas Lord (if you don't know who he is, go and check)

> One remarkable thing about the FSF at that time, when we worked out of dinky spare offices on the campus of MIT, was the degree of participation by women. In the tiny society that was then the FSF, women were more prominent than I had seen in Silicon Valley, or acadamia prior.

https://archive.is/7qepC

And it says a lot about the amount of fabrication going around.

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

#233

Post by blobs »

'as free speech, not as free beer', to explain what is actually meant with 'free software' doesn't cut it for me.

Why not just call it open source and pick the license you prefer? With all respect for Richard Stallman, the label 'free software' is a really poor word choice IMAO.

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

#234

Post by OJFord »

dTal wrote: post #180
grawprog wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?…

> 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?

Not GP, but 'earning a living' can be quite a compelling reason.

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

#235

Post by lostjohnny »

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.

Selam G. builds weapons for US Department of Defense...

That's not really feminist, isn't it?

> • Co-Principle Investigator for a U.S. Department of Defense SBIR Phase II research contract, prototyping autonomous ground vehicle (AGV) with collection system.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/selam-gano-089895ba

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

#236

Post by dTal »

OJFord wrote: post #234
dTal wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?…

> 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? Not GP, but 'earning a living' can be quite a compelling reason.

Scientist or capitalist, can't be both.

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

#237

Post by lostjohnny »

OJFord wrote: post #234
dTal wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?…

> 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? Not GP, but 'earning a living' can be quite a compelling reason.

That's why US needs a job protection law.

In Italy you can't be fired for your opinions.

Never!

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

#238

Post by foldr »

lliamander wrote: post #153
toofy wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t mean to quibble and I really want to strsss this next point: I’m absolutely as lost as we all seem to be regarding how some people in our communities should be dealt with. I don’t yet know how we’ll choose to handle them. But anyway, using the term “thoughtcrime” feels incredibly disingenuous and could easily be misconstrued as intentionally inflammatory. Obviously you wouldn’t be intentionally inflammatory o…

"Thoughtcrime" here refers to the mere expression of taboo opinions, independent of a person's actual behavior towards others. It seems to be the case that Stallman did engage in inappropriate behavior - which perhaps should have been dealt with differently by CSAIL, MIT, the FSF board etc. The appropriate response may very well have been to ask for his resignation. But those behaviors are not why he was asked to res…

People in public positions have always had to be careful about what they say. It really lowers the quality of discussion to talk about "thought crime" in this context. Stallman isn't being thrown into prison for expressing his political views. He's being fired from his job (to the extent that it is a job) for making ill-judged and offensive comments.

> It seems the real reason he was fired was because he expressed a difference of opinion over the nature of Marvin Minksy's guilt as a result of his association with Epstein.

No, thats not it. The inflammatory comment was the following:

>“It is morally absurd to define ‘rape’ in a way that depends on minor details such as which country it was in or whether the victim was 18 years old or 17".

This statement is as clear as mud, but it certainly seems to suggest that age shouldn't be considered as a factor in determining consent.

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

#240

Post by craigsmansion »

jonathankoren wrote: post #148
4bpp wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do not think that a tacky joke about "emacs virgins" as part of a comedy routine parodying real religious movements past and present deserves being treated as a punishable offense at all . Not only do I think that this should not be objectionable and those who try to make it out to be are contributing to our society being a worse place than it has to be, calls for punishment on the basis of it also strike me as pla…

Assuming good faith, I’m old enough to remember not only 2009, but also the 1990s. This tacky joke wasn’t considered to be in line with the best advice at either time. While you may need to take my word for 1990s, the very fact that there are multiple contemporaneous articles about the inappropriateness of the 2009 skit, is evidence of that. I will concede that the tolerance for the tacky joke may have been a bit hig…

Some might have found it funny, others might have found it tacky. It's the way jokes work. Important here is that his is not the first time it happened or where it was used disproportionally against him:

https://stallman.org/articles/texas.html

From the above, from someone at TI he met later who was amused by his joke:

"The plant incident, which I found rather humorous, provided a reason for people in the later camp to become offended. This was convenient as they had been looking for one. They were subsequently able to blow it to suitable proportions to gain the attention of management. "

Stallman will always offend people because he speaks about their unethical behaviour. Those offended will use whatever he does as an excuse.

Post reply on HN