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

271–280 of 426 posts

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

#271

Post by SolaceQuantum »

lostjohnny wrote: post #253
SolaceQuantum wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, I’m not understanding. Is inappropriate actions a thoughtcrime? Like. I thought thoughtcrime and actions are separate- you can think about how women are just pieces of meat all you like, once you start treating them as pieces of meat then you’ve moved from thinking (thoughtcrime) to action (serial killer)? (Edit; to be clear, since this was a point of confusion, I do not believe anyone I am responding to think…

You're not in charge of deciding what's inappropriate or not. Talking about dicks is inappropriate, but if you are an urologist speaking with other urolgy students, it makes perfect sense. Stallman was writing to other students about the correct representation of the Minsky situation, because they were using Minsky's name in an inappropriate way to protest against MIT-Epstein case. (Unless you think that accusing a d…

Sorry, I should’ve clarified that this is a rhetorical you! My apologies for not being clear; I was under the impression that the structure of my post would’ve implied as such. Sorry for the offense I’ve caused.

As for the rest of it- well, the post questioning thoughtcrime wasn’t about the individual email defense of a friend at all, but about the decades of complaints! So, again, totally out of context there. Can you re-respond with relevant conjecture?

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

#272

Post by DarkWiiPlayer »

bitofhope wrote: post #193
donatj wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is it okay for someone to murder a person if they saved more than one life before ? That is a yes or no question. That is literally a binary choice. Yes or no - is murder OK if that murder saves more than one person. That is literally the Trolley Problem.

That wasn't really the question, though. There was nothing there about saving lives _by_ murdering someone. It's more like "is it ok do do bad things if you've built up good karma beforehand by doing more good stuff".

Nope. That's a strawman right there.

The question is, is it acceptable to tolerate someones bad deeds because the benefits of doing so is greater than the harm.

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

#273

Post by shagie »

tzs wrote: post #128
ariabuckles wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the negative effects spread further because they skew the field more. I think women are more likely to avoid FOSS because there are few women, even without knowing who RMS is, than men are likely to go into FOSS because of RMS or someone who was inspired by RMS. That's an assumption on my part, but I think making tech more equitable for all people is a worthy goal in itself, even if that doesn't increase the…

> Minsky should have known. Implying there's any way what he did was okay creates an unwelcoming environment for women, especially young women and girls at MIT How would Minsky have known? It was 2001 or early 2002, before Epstein's trafficking came to light. From Minsky's point of view, a girl who worked at Epstein's retreat as a masseuse and was above the age of consent [1] offered to have sex with him. (Which, acc…

https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/9/20798900/marvin-minsky-jef...

> In 2012, the Jeffrey Epstein Foundation issued a press release touting another conference organized by Minsky on the island in December 2011.

The press release is at https://www.pr.com/press-release/383199

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

#274

Post by craigsmansion »

lostjohnny wrote: post #268
craigsmansion wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please don't. Salem G. made a mistake in desiring to address a problem that is worth discussing, but did so with a hasty ill-conceived reaction constructed through gossip and hearsay. It shouldn't happen, but it does. The various publications should have checked their facts and performed due diligence, but something, anything MIT related is money in the bank right now. They sold out. Breaking down Salem for her mista…

Gavin McInnes is really a misogynist and founder of Vice. She's really building weapons for the US department of defense. I'm not doing anything, just doubting of her qualities as a spoke person of a movement that targeted RMS for no reason other than ignorance (taking for granted that there isn't anything else behind it) If we can doubt Stallman as a leader, we can as well doubt Selam G. And I'm saying it because sh…

I understand ignoring her goes counter to your notion of justice, and this is somehow fair play. You have every right to doubt her, but you should realise it doesn't matter.

No matter how much doubt you could reveal about her person, you will never see a headline: "MIT alumna found to be axe-murderer, RMS cleared and re-instated as FSF president".

She doesn't matter, and any attack on her will be seen as petty at best by those who only read the articles.

Any effort expended on her could have been expended on dispelled one of the falsehoods being propagated about rms.

The truth takes time and patience, and you can't expedite matters by stooping to the levels of those maliciously perpetuating this smear campaign.

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

#275

Post by DarkWiiPlayer »

hdfbdtbcdg wrote: post #152
knocte wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you about all the past bad behaviour, but the e-mail about Minsky was a bad choice to be the "last straw". It was an email calling for accusation-inflation prevention, which the media portrayed as completely the opposite (and this way of manipulation information from the media should be criminal, in my opinion).

If we made deliberate or negligent defamation a criminal offence it might restore some sanity to society.

That's similar to how "free speech"* works in Germany, and you have people like crowder saying in public that "Germany has no free speech".

I agree in principle, but I think there's lots of good arguments against it as well.

More importantly than the question of whether it's legal, I'm amazed that people can still see themselves as "the good ones" after all the things they do to their fellow humans.

* In German, we use the word "Meinungsfreiheit", which literally translates to "Freedom of Opinion", not "Free Speech", so yes, technically speaking, we don't have free speech; only the right to express our opinions.

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

#276

Post by ChrisSD »

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 it's available for a fee than it's not suppression, though it is an impedance to the free flow of information. And to be fair it does cost money to host large collections of data.

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

#277

Post by GoblinSlayer »

colonwqbang wrote: post #159
thayne wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's more like the notion of open source, where the source may be viewable but isn't necessarily available for redistribution. I think you misunderstand the distinction between open source and free software. Open source software also needs to be available for redistribution. The main practical difference is Free Software also requires that if you make any changes to the software, those changes must _also_ be releas…

No, you are thinking of copyleft software. "Free software" means the same thing as "open-source software". See for instance this GNU page where permissive licenses like the MIT license are also described as "free software licenses": https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html

It's up for interpretation. Toviozation clearly restricts freedom of modification.

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

#278

Post by _emacsomancer_ »

distances wrote: post #175
tzs wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Yeah, Gates was born wealthy, so Microsoft isn't exactly a rags-to-riches story.

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

#279

Post by namarie »

Mikhail_Edoshin wrote: post #245
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.

> Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from social consequences. I often see this phrase and it looks like a fallacy to me. Does anyone question its validity? Social consequences are a severe thing, in practice they mean losing a job or position, boycotting, etc. In ancient Greece to expel a person was a very strong punishment. Nowadays the associated hardbacks are milder perhaps, but still are pretty severe. If s…

> If speech is so potent a weapon that to protect against it we have to use extreme social defenses like expulsion, why not to use the same weapon against the perpetrators? Why not to speak in return? Stallman says something, you say something. Take that, Richard Stallman!

Because the power of the speech in question depends upon the power of the speaker. This isn't rocket science. If I as a random human person say something creepy to you on the street you can just go away. If Stallman does it and you are working under him you have to weigh a whole lot of things (academic standing, his prestige, the possibility that a whole lot of people will defend him just because of who he is and accuse you of accusing him of a "thoughtcrime") in your response. It's an assymetrical situation.

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

#280

Post by orangeshark »

Myrmornis wrote: post #204

> we mean that it respects the users' essential freedoms: the freedom to run it, to study and change it, and to redistribute copies with or without changes With open source but not "free" (sensu Stallman) software, one is free to run it and study it and change it, right? Since one has read permissions on the code. So the only difference is in distribution rights? So his sentence is misleading regarding the extent of…

Free software and open source software cover basically the same software. The main difference is that these communities value different parts of the software. Free Software supporters value the freedom aspects of the software, while Open Source Software supporters value the development practices to create powerful and reliable software. If you listen to these supporters on the benefits of releasing your software as Free and Open Source, you will hear completely different reasons why.
Post reply on HN