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

No Radical Changes in GNU Project

lists.gnu.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 155 posts

Re: No Radical Changes in GNU Project

#51

Post by computerex »

mattl wrote: post #42
nabla9 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a list of people against RMS.

Not at all. I'm one of the people who signed it.

I'll quote the page since maybe you had trouble reading it: https://guix.gnu.org/blog/2019/joint-statement-on-the-gnu-pr...

> Yet, we must also acknowledge that Stallman’s behavior over the years has undermined a core value of the GNU project: the empowerment of all computer users. GNU is not fulfilling its mission when the behavior of its leader alienates a large part of those we want to reach out to.

> We believe that Richard Stallman cannot represent all of GNU. We think it is now time for GNU maintainers to collectively decide about the organization of the project. The GNU Project we want to build is one that everyone can trust to defend their freedom.

These are not supporters and the page isn't made in support of RMS.

Re: No Radical Changes in GNU Project

#52

Post by computerex »

zapita wrote: post #32
nabla9 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very anemic list. For example, only one person from GCC steering committee (Ian Lance Taylor)

Also not a single woman on that list of Stallman supporters, as far as I can tell. EDIT: I misread, it’s not a letter of support to Stallman. Sorry.

Quote from the page:

> Yet, we must also acknowledge that Stallman’s behavior over the years has undermined a core value of the GNU project: the empowerment of all computer users. GNU is not fulfilling its mission when the behavior of its leader alienates a large part of those we want to reach out to.

> We believe that Richard Stallman cannot represent all of GNU. We think it is now time for GNU maintainers to collectively decide about the organization of the project. The GNU Project we want to build is one that everyone can trust to defend their freedom.

This is not a list of people in support of RMS, they are against RMS.

Re: No Radical Changes in GNU Project

#53

Post by kauffj »

Excellent. This entire incident has been re-enforcing of how willing the media is to lie and how little people care when the lies support a narrative they believe in.

Here is what reporter Edward Ongweso Jr. wrote for Vice [1]:

> Early in the thread, Stallman insists that the “most plausible scenario” is that Epstein’s underage victims were “entirely willing” while being trafficked.

Here is what Stallman actually wrote:

> We can imagine many scenarios, but the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing. Assuming she was being coerced by Epstein, he would have had every reason to tell her to conceal that from most of his associates.

There is literally no way to read the previous sentence as Stallman arguing that Epstein's victims were entirely willing.

People like Edward Ongweso should be the ones losing their jobs, not Richard Stallman.

[1]: https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/ne8b47/two-researchers-re...

Re: No Radical Changes in GNU Project

#54

Post by swsieber »

shadowgovt wrote: post #41
jgon wrote: post #19

I don't want to get into the weeds discussing the ins and outs of the various things that have happened with RMS and the FSF. I have my own opinions on whether or not these moves were warranted. Separate from that I guess my largest worry is that this is another step on the road to a complete neutering of the Free Software movement, and the increasing corporate enclosure of the software commons. The one thing I feel…

It's a complicated question, but I think the real decline of true free software commons was probably around the time cloud services proved so valuable. Cloud provides huge leverage to some end-users for getting to the goal of doing the thing they want to do with the software, and it utterly side-steps the Four Freedoms via the simple expedient of "You don't own the hardware the software runs on." GNU hasn't had an an…

Well, AGPL was the answer to that issue, but it hasn't really done much. I think part of the impact was things like GitHub recommending the MIT license.

Re: No Radical Changes in GNU Project

#55

Post by tjr »

shadowgovt wrote: post #41
jgon wrote: post #19

I don't want to get into the weeds discussing the ins and outs of the various things that have happened with RMS and the FSF. I have my own opinions on whether or not these moves were warranted. Separate from that I guess my largest worry is that this is another step on the road to a complete neutering of the Free Software movement, and the increasing corporate enclosure of the software commons. The one thing I feel…

It's a complicated question, but I think the real decline of true free software commons was probably around the time cloud services proved so valuable. Cloud provides huge leverage to some end-users for getting to the goal of doing the thing they want to do with the software, and it utterly side-steps the Four Freedoms via the simple expedient of "You don't own the hardware the software runs on." GNU hasn't had an an…

I think the GNU response is more subtle than "boycott it". In particular, I do not get the impression that GNU opposes someone using software that runs on someone else's server machine in general. One obvious example would be an HTTP server with PHP scripts, or whatever.

The software running on the remote server could even be proprietary software! For the sake of the person running the server, they should not use proprietary software, but if it is running on their machine and not yours, then it is not your responsibility, and (as I understand the GNU position) not wrong for you to access that software.

Now, if the software is actually a combination of server-side software and client-side software, such as servers that deliver Javascript code to be run locally, then that Javascript software should be Free Software.

But moreover, the GNU concern about running software on remote servers (i.e., "in the cloud"), is not just about the software itself, but about what the server maintainers can and do do with user data. Who owns the data? Can you get a copy of it? Can you get a copy of _all_ of it? How about the implications of the data? For example, you could tell Facebook ten things about yourself, and they could extrapolate a hundred more. Is "your data" the ten things only, and not the additional hundred extrapolations? And, if you ask them to delete "your data", will they? If they do, what exactly do they delete?

So it's really more of a privacy issue, I think, than a pure "free software" issue, but important nevertheless.

Re: No Radical Changes in GNU Project

#56

Post by m-p-3 »

zeko1195 wrote: post #22

This might be a noob question but can someone explain me how mailing lists are used in software projects. I keep seeing these archived emails that are posted. Could someone fill me in?

It's basically a rudimentary forum system based on email communication that relies on a software most people have and that is widely available in either closed-source or open-source, an email client.

Re: No Radical Changes in GNU Project

#57

Post by mattl »

computerex wrote: post #51
mattl wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not at all. I'm one of the people who signed it.

I'll quote the page since maybe you had trouble reading it: https://guix.gnu.org/blog/2019/joint-statement-on-the-gnu-pr... > Yet, we must also acknowledge that Stallman’s behavior over the years has undermined a core value of the GNU project: the empowerment of all computer users. GNU is not fulfilling its mission when the behavior of its leader alienates a large part of those we want to reach out to. > We believe t…

I signed it. I'm not against RMS, I just don't think he should lead GNU. I think the GNU Advisory Committee is better suited to lead things. I believe both the FSF board and the GAC need term limits and I hope they implement them.

Re: No Radical Changes in GNU Project

#58

Post by fjp »

swsieber wrote: post #50
ng12 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Stallman’s behavior over the years has undermined a core value of the GNU project: the empowerment of all computer users The notion that empowered means shielded from opinions you might disagree with seems odd.

Contrast that with Ellen Degeneres responding to people dismayed that she sat next to George W. Bush during a game (warning, video in the tweet): https://twitter.com/TheEllenShow/status/1181395164499070976 Basically, it's okay to be friends with people we disagree with (and really, we ought to).

George Bush killed a million Iraqis in a war based on fabricated evidence of an Iraqi WMD program

Re: No Radical Changes in GNU Project

#60

Post by ivalm »

iamasoftwaredev wrote: post #45
hdfbdtbcdg wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. They got rid of RMS based on slander and libel. They are no long relevant to Free Software.

and truth and past actions.

what truth and past actions? seriously I see lots of vague references but no one actually links to anything concrete. I get a very "it is known" vibe here, which is usually baseless.
Post reply on HN