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

361–370 of 426 posts

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

#361

Post by flatb »

lostjohnny wrote: post #338
flatb wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Where is the crime here? The analogy is between a good thing not cancelling out a bad thing. The police are not involved. There isn't a crime. He has been pressured for making people very uncomfortable in pursuit of his sexual interests, which is a perfectly good reason to reprieve someone. He has been accused, by several independent parties, of, among other things: -Asking female coworkers to lay down topless on a…

> He has been accused, by several independent parties, of, among other things: Who, exactly? > -Asking female coworkers to lay down topless on a mattress in his office. > -Threatening a colleague to kill himself if he/she didn't go on a date with him. Sooooo, your entire analysis is based on legends circulating since the 90s about a weird man who was even told to be scared by plants? For reference, Thomas Lord, creat…

> Sooooo, your entire analysis is based on legends circulating since the 90s

No, it isn't. My "entire analysis" is based on accusations made by several independent parties, corroborated by similarly independent witnesses, who have all confirmed what you call "legends of the 90s" to several news sources and publications.

What part of that don't you understand?

I can provide you with sources, if you want, but I have a feeling you don't really care and you'll automatically discredit them because they don't fit within your narrative of sexism in the software industry being a mostly made-up issue by oversensitive people who want attention and free merit.

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

#362

Post by lliamander »

foldr wrote: post #357
lliamander wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Given RMS's previous comments on the same subject, it's pretty clear what he's saying here While I do disagree with Stallman's statement here, I think it's important to point out that your insinuation is not justified. He did not say that he thought pedophilia was good, only that he was skeptical of the claims that it was bad because he'd only ever been presented with examples of involuntary pedophilia . In the int…

He said that he was "skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children". Thus, it's not surprising that he thinks age is irrelevant to the question of whether or not someone was raped. I feel that my insinuation is therefore entirely justified. > because he'd only ever been presented with examples of involuntary pedophilia This framing only underlines the point: if you think that children can "volunta…

Just to reiterate, the subject under debate is what Stallman meant by the claim that the difference between 18 and 17 years old "is a minor detail".

You claim he means "there should be no age of consent"

Others are arguing he means "the difference between those particular ages is minor, and both could be considered reasonable ages of consent".

We could debate endlessly on what Stallman feels in general about the age of consent, but with regards to that particular comment I cannot see how your interpretation is justified given the particular words he chose for that specific comment. If he had wanted to argue that there is no need for an age of consent, then I'm sure he would have chosen words that meant that.

> Can you provide a reference to his supposed retraction of this statement dated before September 2019?

No, but Stallman doesn't seem to be the kind of person who would be dishonest in that manner.

> You can see Stallman saying similar things about the age of consent as late as 2018

That's a stretch. He does not mention age of consent (although he does not seem to be bothered by the fact that the young woman was 16). He does however draw a distinction between adolescence (late adolescence in particular) and childhood, which would seem to be relevant.

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

#363

Post by cat_plus_plus »

ariabuckles wrote: post #6
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…

It wasn't just this incident. RMS alienated so many women from open source and free software over the last 30 years, and we've lost all of those potential contributions. He's been getting breaks for 30 years. That he has also done some very good things isn't a good argument for continuing to tolerate his harmful behaviour after he's been asked to fix it for literally decades, and hasn't.

What kind of women and does anyone else find it sexist to assume that men will always be the offenders and women the offendees? Programming involves deconstructing complex problems into basic steps while ignoring full real world nuances in order to derive a reasonable abstraction. Like... deconstructing allegations against Minsky into basic aspect (instructed to have sex vs actually had sex, aware of lack of consent or not, aware of age or not, 16 can consent in jurisdiction X year Y or not). Successful programmers trend not super socially aware and often on autism spectrum. So maybe women genuinely interesting in programming would be like Ada Lovelace, a compulsive gambler with messy love life who dreamed of building a computer to beat poker? How long would she last in 2019 MIT?

And if you get alienated from a career path because of one bad professor, go and find something else that you want so badly that you are willing to tough it out. Otherwise you will always blame your professional success limits on people not supporting you enough, or cracking an off-color joke or two or microaggressions. Do you honestly expect to never have to deal with a problem boss/coworkers/customer in a super-competitive private sector job? Don't tell me nurses and schoolteachers never have to deal with someone like RMS or worse. And sure, some degree of bad behavior should have proportional consequences, but do we hear about how women get alienated from these professions en masse?

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

#364

Post by foldr »

lliamander wrote: post #362
foldr wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He said that he was "skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children". Thus, it's not surprising that he thinks age is irrelevant to the question of whether or not someone was raped. I feel that my insinuation is therefore entirely justified. > because he'd only ever been presented with examples of involuntary pedophilia This framing only underlines the point: if you think that children can "volunta…

Just to reiterate, the subject under debate is what Stallman meant by the claim that the difference between 18 and 17 years old "is a minor detail". You claim he means "there should be no age of consent" Others are arguing he means "the difference between those particular ages is minor, and both could be considered reasonable ages of consent". We could debate endlessly on what Stallman feels in general about the age…

>Others are arguing he means "the difference between those particular ages is minor, and both could be considered reasonable ages of consent".

That does not make it "morally absurd" to set 18 as the legal age of consent, so I don't think that's a plausible reading of what RMS said. He could only find the idea morally absurd if he found the idea of the age of consent morally absurd - which is consistent with everything he's ever said that touches on the issue. If he was merely quibbling about the age, he'd say "I think the age of consent should be a bit lower."

>No, but Stallman doesn't seem to be the kind of person who would be dishonest in that manner.

It's not clear what you are referring to here. I'm not much impressed by someone later saying that they changed their mind a long time ago (if you have a reference to RMS saying that - I don't). Grossly wrong public statements should be publicly retracted. If they're not retracted, then they're fair game for criticism.

>although he does not seem to be bothered by the fact that the young woman was 16)

He says "she may have had — I expect, did have — entirely willing sex with him, and they would still call it 'assault'". That is, he thinks the fact that the girl was a teenager (and he didn't know she was 16 specifically in the earlier version of the comment) is no barrier to her having "willing" sex with an older man. It's painfully obvious what RMS thinks. He thinks that age should not be a factor in deciding whether or not someone was raped or sexually assaulted, since people of any age (or at least, teens up) can "willingly" have sex with much older adults.

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

#365

Post by hdfbdtbcdg »

foldr wrote: post #352
hdfbdtbcdg wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Put it this way a member of the Norwegian government has been widely reported to have had sex with a drunk 17 year old (I am not certain whether the reports are true since the teenager has declined to comment). If the age of consent were 18 then the minister would have been investigated by the police. Since it is 16 the minister continues to serve in the government without stigma. Big difference in outcomes but the t…

>Of course there has to be a cutoff. In which case the difference between $AGE and $AGE-1 is not a "minor detail".

Legally speaking no it is not. Morally speaking yes it can be (depending on many factors).

Some legal systems attempt to account for this. E.g. England and Wales have two key ages. Having sex with someone under 16 might be (to use US terms) rape or statutory rape depending on whether the person under 16 consented. Both are illegal but rape more so. Having sex with someone under 13 is always rape since children under 13 are not considered able to consent. But in some cases 16 is not the cutoff if e.g. a teacher has sex with a pupil under 18 this is also always illegal. On the other hand if the defendant genuinely did not know the chief witness was under 16 and there was consent this is a defense.

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

#366

Post by _rpaf »

craigsmansion wrote: post #324
flatb wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stallman was reviled because he has been accused, by several independent parties, of, among other things: -Asking female coworkers to lay down topless on a mattress in his office. -Threatening a colleague to kill himself if he/she didn't go on a date with him. -Posting up signs in his workplace along the lines of "Knight for Justice (Also: Hot Ladies)".

> Asking female coworkers to lay down topless on a mattress in his office. Even the initial accusation doesn't try to push the story that far: "He literally used to have a mattress on the floor of his office. [..] (the mattress was also known to have shirtless people lounging on it…)" Person has sleeping accommodation in place where he lives (odd thought it may be). Sometimes people use it as chair. No mentions of re…

How excellent of you to redact the most damning part of your quote of the initial accusation, that literally says:

> He kept the door to his office open, to proudly showcase that mattress and all the implications that went with it. Many female students avoided the corridor with his office for that reason

Now go ahead and tell me it's a coincidence you kept that part out, and it was probably not a big deal, and they were all exaggerating in some inexplicable coordinated effort to be disturbed.

So your arguments basically consist on half-quotes, "it happened long ago, so it isn't true", "unsubstantiated; since there's no recordings of it, he probably just said something nice and was misinterpreted yet again" and "maybe that happened, but since I, a man, who'd never be targeted by his sexual advances, think it's ok, it's ok", completely disregarding the fact that all these accusations have been corroborated by witnesses, ranging from people interviewed on several media and dozens of reports and online comments from people who claim to have worked with him over the years, let alone the several unrelated victims of his "urban legends", and most of all, the fact that people repeatedly let him know about his attitude and he didn't give a damn.

In short, yet another big, somehow coordinated witch hunt by overly sensitive SJWs.

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

#367

Post by krapp »

lliamander wrote: post #351
krapp wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Also, I fear that it's becoming harder to be a weird nerd in tech[1]. The thing is, tech can embrace "weirdness" without also embracing sexual harassment, hostility and toxicity. Not every behavior that deviates from the "politically correct" norm needs to be worn as a badge of honor and celebrated as cultural quirkiness by tech people.

I'm not saying that tech should embrace "sexual harassment, hostility and toxicity" (though I do think we should be careful how we define such terms). I said I didn't think his behavior should get a pass, and elsewhere in this thread I acknowledge that asking for his resignation may even be the correct response to his past behavior. My point is that it wasn't his past behavior that lead to his forced resignation. If…

>My point is that it wasn't his past behavior that lead to his forced resignation.

Maybe not directly, but I think it certainly added weight to the scales that tipped against his favor.

At the very least, Stallman's present behavior is the product of his past behavior.

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

#368

Post by foldr »

hdfbdtbcdg wrote: post #365
foldr wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Of course there has to be a cutoff. In which case the difference between $AGE and $AGE-1 is not a "minor detail".

Legally speaking no it is not. Morally speaking yes it can be (depending on many factors). Some legal systems attempt to account for this. E.g. England and Wales have two key ages. Having sex with someone under 16 might be (to use US terms) rape or statutory rape depending on whether the person under 16 consented. Both are illegal but rape more so. Having sex with someone under 13 is always rape since children under…

RMS was objecting to the legal definition of rape (hence the reference to it varying between countries). But if you want to switch to the moral issue, then that’s even more black and white. Is it ok for a 70 year old man in a position of power to (hypothetically) have sex with a 17 year old girl? Erm, no. Can sex in such circumstances be fully consensual? No, it can’t. So if your suggestion is that RMS was making some kind of defensible moral argument, I can’t imagine what it might be.

I happen to be English so I’m familiar with the laws in England. I don’t see how any of that is relevant. The English law has cutoffs of exactly the same kind (it’s just that the relevant age threshold is usually 16 rather than 18). Obviously, no-one thinks that any such threshold can be completely non-arbitrary. It is just as "morally absurd" for sex between two 16 year olds to be legal and sex between a 16 year old and a 15 year old to be illegal. But unless - like RMS - you fail to recognize that age is a factor in consent, you have to make a cut somewhere. Apparently, from RMS's point of view, the most troubling feature of such laws is that they may prevent 70 year old Profs screwing 17 year old girls.

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

#369

Post by andrekandre »

lostjohnny wrote: post #202
stelonix wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting, I've been thinking about this myself: whether a new foundation or movement will be created around RMS and without the stigmas that allow people to be "cancelled" over their thoughts or opinions. I have to say, the FSF without RMS simply makes no sense. It's one of those institutions where more than 51% of its effectiveness came from a single person. I firmly believe a "fork" for the FSF is coming soon.

it already happened. As usual, not trying to be prejudicial here, it happened in the U.S. where different 501(c)(3) formed to attract donation capital, but that actually have been an enemy of large part of the FSF community. There can't be one strong FSF they want many small feuds, it's like greenwashing, open washing is happening, which, BTW, "misses the point of free software". Look at what happened to Eben Moglen,…

> Because Moglen expressed his lawyer opinion in a way that Garret did not like.

any article about what happened?

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

#370

Post by ekianjo »

schoen wrote: post #342
ekianjo wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it's a marketing name, it completely misses the essential point that it's about Freedom, not the "open" part of it.

That's what FSF and OSI most disagreed about at the time!

Yeah, and it's a relevant point to disagree on :-)
Post reply on HN