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

Richard Stallman – The state of the Free Software movement

news.slashdot.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

441–450 of 623 posts

Re: Richard Stallman – The state of the Free Software movement

#441

Post by specialist »

geofft wrote: post #422
jasoneckert wrote: post #384

From reading the other comments here, I understand that it's easy to pick something RMS said and say "Yeah, right..." But you have to keep in mind that RMS advocates the free software philosophy - the complete left end of the software spectrum - the white angel on your shoulder (not the red devil on the other). And while I find some of his points too radical to implement practically in my own situation, I believe it'…

> But you have to keep in mind that RMS advocates the free software philosophy - the complete left end of the software spectrum I don't think this is true! There are notable portions of the free software community that are farther left (or whatever direction you may consider it to be) than Stallman and GNU. Debian, for instance, rejects the GFDL as a non-free license when the "invariant sections" or "cover texts" mec…

First off, I love these kinds of discussions, debates. Thank you.

IIRC, RMS rejected forfeiting rights, eg public domain, to better protect users of software. Maybe the thinking was that the absence of copyright would lead to seizure (capture) and exploitation of the works.

I'd love to know how that's actually worked out, empirically. Like comparing outcomes of similar projects which used different licenses.

Re: Richard Stallman – The state of the Free Software movement

#442

Post by UncleMeat »

jdbernard wrote: post #398
doikor wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Private walled gardens would pretty much kill the competitive scene of most games. I used to play competitive dota (the original wc3 map) back in the day and the inhouse leagues were a massive pain in the ass. Same with all the various leagues for counter strike (1.6 at the time). UX was terrible, the moderation sucked and you still had to have anti-cheat as people would cheat even in private spaces. Usually the easi…

Counter-argument is Smash Bros, which is basically only private games and has a competitive scene.

And it has barely limped along over the years in comparison to other developer supported FGC games.

This is more of an "exception that proves the rule" since Smash is pretty much the only competitive game with zero centralized support that has broken out of a tiny niche to compete with big names.

Re: Richard Stallman – The state of the Free Software movement

#443

Post by Ensorceled »

tjader wrote: post #431
Beltalowda wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What am I supposed to say to that? Proprietary software is not slavery, or even anywhere close to it, even if we accept the argument that it is unethical. I find this entire analogy unhelpful.

The point is not to compare proprietary software to slavery. The point is that Stallman does not find proprietary software bad for the user, he finds it morally wrong . That means in this case it doesn't make sense to complain and argue about his answer to the developer, as his answer makes perfect sense given his premises. If you want to disagree with his advice, you have to disagree with his moral position on propr…

> The point is not to compare proprietary software to slavery.

You did exactly that.

> The point is that Stallman does not find proprietary software bad for the user, he finds it morally wrong.

I truly hope that you are wrong and Stallman does not believe proprietary software to be an evil on par with slavery.

Re: Richard Stallman – The state of the Free Software movement

#444

Post by giantrobot »

bobsmooth wrote: post #168
giantrobot wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I compare it do "how garbage would desktops be if Linux wasn't around to provide useful pressure?" In what world does Linux on the desktop provide "useful pressure" to anyone? The only Linux "desktop" that has provided any pressure on the desktop to Microsoft and Apple is ChromeOS. ChromeOS is decidedly not a "Linux desktop". If Google flipped ChromeOS to Fuchsia tomorrow it would provide the same pressure with zer…

That there is a desktop OS where everything is open reminds people that are alternatives to walled gardens.

That is a far cry from "useful pressure".

Re: Richard Stallman – The state of the Free Software movement

#445

Post by mrob »

andai wrote: post #160
Beltalowda wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A few years ago I saw an indie game developer recount his experience with Stallman[1]; he doesn't see how he can release his games as Free Software while making a living, pay his rent, pay for his children's education, etc. So he asked Stallman what to do about that. Stallman's reply? "You should not be making those games, it is unethical." To say that is non-constructive would be an understatement; it's just shuttin…

When you buy a game from Jason Rohrer, you get the source code too. (It's also on GitHub.) What you're actually buying is an account on the official multiplayer server (which is also open source). I thought this was a really interesting model. Maybe it wouldn't work so well with singleplayer games. However, there's a similar example with the sprite editor / animation software Aseprite, which is open source but you ha…

As of version 1.1.8, Aseprite is source-available proprietary software, not open source:

https://dev.aseprite.org/2016/09/01/new-source-code-license/

Re: Richard Stallman – The state of the Free Software movement

#446

Post by SkyBelow »

Shoue wrote: post #432
geofft wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But you have to keep in mind that RMS advocates the free software philosophy - the complete left end of the software spectrum I don't think this is true! There are notable portions of the free software community that are farther left (or whatever direction you may consider it to be) than Stallman and GNU. Debian, for instance, rejects the GFDL as a non-free license when the "invariant sections" or "cover texts" mec…

> Or take the AGPL, for instance, sponsored by now-defunct startup Affero. There are many people (myself included) who believe the AGPL is a restriction on use, freedom 0, because it prevents you from using AGPL software in certain contexts where the requirements cannot be fulfilled. > The GPLv2 itself starts by saying, "To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions" - there is a coherent political view that t…

>There will _always_ be such restrictions. For an extreme, but derived from the same philosophical core, example: the act of murder is an individual freedom, but it imposes on other peoples' freedoms. So we have to make a choice between which freedom is more important: that of the person whose life is at risk, or that of the person who wants to take lives. The formal concepts are referred to as negative liberty (freedom from murder) and positive liberty (freedom to murder someone).

Your example seems messy because people seem very opposed to the notion of a freedom to cause harm as even being a freedom. So why not avoid that complication entirely?

I think there is an even simpler example that'll work. If one is truly a free person, can they sell themselves into slavery. If we say yes, then allowing slavery is part of the package of ultimate freedom. If we say no, then there is at least one restriction we must include in the package of ultimate freedom. Package of ultimate freedom just being a spur of the moment name I've given to the legal system under which we are most free. Lastly, an answer of the form 'no one should exist in a position of being able to stop you from doing such', such as provided by anarchists, it just an alternate way of answering yes to the question.

Re: Richard Stallman – The state of the Free Software movement

#447

Post by anthk »

dralley wrote: post #34
dangom wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stallman has a vision that you and I should be typing our comments and playing our games from machines that are under our control, i.e., whereby we can inspect and modify all of the code that is running on them. That is not the case, and all Stallman is saying, is that this is bad for us. The Free Software Foundation was founded in 1985. From there since Free Software has only lost ground. I don't think Stallman woul…

>From there since Free Software has only lost ground That's not true, it gained ground for a long time after that. "Free" as in freedom software, by Stallman's definition, probably peaked in the early 2000s. And I would say that the losses mostly started happening when the FSF stopped producing software that people wanted to use. They effectively ignored the entire internet revolution.

Not even close. We have Linux-libre backed distros today.

Re: Richard Stallman – The state of the Free Software movement

#448

Post by phs318u »

krick wrote: post #209
phs318u wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The only logical course of action is to allow all speech and let the reader discern for themselves. The assumption being that most readers are discerning. Kind of reminds of the adage about markets working based on rational actors. In both situations, reality would like a word.

No, there's no such assumption. In fact, by virtue of ignoring the main point of his, your post is an example "of the adage about markets working based on rational actors", which doesn't go well with reality. And the point is: "Who decides what's reasonable?" You? Well, yeah, I hope you do for yourself. But I don't want you to dare to even try to decide that for me. Nothing personal, of course: there's no single pers…

Perhaps I wasn’t being clear. Following the principle that your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins, the thing about free speech and an undiscerning audience is that there are often consequences that cross that line even when the speech itself doesn’t. Anyway, I’m pretty confident that I’m not going to cut the Gordian knot here.

For myself I’m happy for you to have all the freedom of speech you like. What I’d like enshrined is the right to freedom from speech. In my country we are in the midst of an election campaign and it is impossible for me (both legally and technically) to stop political parties from spamming my phone. I would rather they didn’t spam my phone. I don’t have an opinion about your phone.

Re: Richard Stallman – The state of the Free Software movement

#449

Post by crtasm »

doikor wrote: post #424
jdbernard wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Counter-argument is Smash Bros, which is basically only private games and has a competitive scene.

Smash Bros has so bad netcode that serious competitive online play does not really exist. This is why most big fighting game tournaments dropped smash during covid due to being forced to be ran online (and Nintendo is just a real pain to work with). Instead we get some previously "small" game being ran at big tournamets like Skullgirls at EVO because they have rock solid netcode so they can actually be played online…

There was going to be an online Smash tournament using emulation + a mod to improve the netcode but Nintendo shut it down:

https://www.polygon.com/2020/11/19/21578200/super-smash-bros...

Re: Richard Stallman – The state of the Free Software movement

#450

Post by Ensorceled »

tjader wrote: post #436
contrast wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless you have a low opinion of Stallman, why would you expect him to be so dismissive of the day-to-day concerns of someone who wants to support a family? Using extreme ethical examples to justify a statement is how Godwin’s Law came about, way back in the 90s. It’s a well known tactic to make one’s own position sound reasonable, by implying that anyone is still arguing with you may as well be saying the Nazis were…

I wasn't comparing proprietary software to slavery. I was making the point that for Stallman proprietary software is as unethical as slavery is to most people. Maybe I picked the wrong thing to make the analogy, it could have worked just as well with theft, murder, or any other unethical behavior. I wasn't making any point about whether Stallman is right or wrong on that, I was just pointing out that people are attac…

> I wasn't comparing proprietary software to slavery. I was making the point that for Stallman proprietary software is as unethical as slavery is to most people. Maybe I picked the wrong thing to make the analogy, it could have worked just as well with theft, murder, or any other unethical behavior.

Wow. There is a continuum from good behaviour to unethical behaviour to evil.

To conflate and compare and equivalate unethical behaviours like theft with true evils like slavery or murder is beyond unhelpful.

I don't see how proprietary has even been established as unethical let alone a evil equivalent to slavery.

Please stop making this argument on Stallman's behalf.

Post reply on HN