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

541–550 of 623 posts

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

#541

Post by stjohnswarts »

zach_garwood wrote: post #479
sleepymoose wrote: post #474

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who has heard the name but never looked into his message until now, is Stallman always so gung-ho on "All software should be free software"? Specifically, when I hit his comments regarding video games, I was quite shocked. "Unless the game is non-free — then it's bad for you, if you play it.", if that's the case, then is any entertainment that comes at a monetary fee bad? How ahout proprietary software for…

He's using free as in free speech, not free as in free beer.

This quote is almost useless unless you know its origins. I think it comes across as a bit disrespectful of the people you're aiming it at because most won't know what the hell you're getting at unless they look it up.

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

#542

Post by ineedasername »

stjohnswarts wrote: post #513
ineedasername wrote: post #425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't describe the most extremist viewpoint on most matters as a white angel. Extremism tends to turn off some people from the cause when it looks somewhat irrational. Telling people they're bad and shouldn't play non-free videogames certainly isn't going to help things much. If you make someone who would otherwise be on your side feel guilty everytime they pick up a controller to unwind at the end of the day, t…

He's not saying people are bad, he's saying that using non-free software (his version of the term) is bad and bad for people. I don't think believe the individual is a bad person. Now I'm sure that he views people like Bill Gates as a bad person or Elon Musk (for locking down Tesla software intentionally) as they use their pulpits to lower people's personal freedom with software.

That seems to stem from a very Christian "hate the sin, not the sinner" foundation. For me, it's always been difficult to separate a person doing bad things from the person also being bad.

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

#543

Post by stjohnswarts »

specialist wrote: post #441
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…

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.

Yeah RMS definitely is adding a moderating factor with the license to ensure that the software stays open unlike MIT/BSD where you just have to note that you're using it to those you are distributing it to and include any copyright notices of the authors (and the license notice of course)

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

#544

Post by josephcsible »

kmeisthax wrote: post #538
josephcsible wrote: post #516

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's not any different from, say, reading a website whose server software is unreleased, but whose client-side JS is all Free Software. I think that an important difference here is that there are FOSS Web servers that are compatible with your browser, but there's no FOSS servers compatible with your Snap client. > Epic Games is still pushing their lawsuit from the perspective of a proprietary software vendor, just…

>Remember the old issue with VLC in the App Store? The issue with VLC in the App Store was that an older version of the App Store T&Cs had standard EULA language that said you weren't allowed to pirate the apps on the store; which contradicts every version of the GPL ever. VLC worked around this by relicensing their iOS port to MPLv2, whose copyleft is apparently weak enough that the App Store EULA does not conflict…

> Even things like the Installation Instructions requirement (either GPLv2 or v3's) is satisfied by the fact that Apple hands out free development accounts like candy and will likely continue to do so for as long as the App Store exists.

But doesn't that fail the Desert Island Test?

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

#545

Post by SkyBelow »

seba_dos1 wrote: post #476
SkyBelow wrote: post #446

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 (free…

I don't think that's the answer provided by anarchists. As far as I understand it, most anarchistic ideas explicitly rely on communities being able to stop you from doing harm. Anarchism is pretty far from libertarian views on individual freedom.

>communities being able to stop you from doing harm

I don't get how these don't qualify as a government. A very small scale one, but still a government.

But either way, that isn't relevant to the example. It is still either a yes/no question, and claiming that there should be no group who can stop you is still answering yes.

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

#546

Post by stjohnswarts »

mixologic wrote: post #260
orbital-decay wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Laughing at RMS had proven shortsighted in the past, and I don't think anything changed, it's still unwise. It's not just about free software either (that's a higher-level target), it's also about the hardware and freedom of running your software on your machine, and owning your computer in general. For example, anticheats in multiplayer games is the major driving factor behind locking PCs down with DRM and chains of…

I feel like free software, and RMS's biggest blind spot is the network, between people, and between computers. Everything is framed and discussed in this old timey way of using computers, where you had a general purpose machine that was personal that you programmed to do things you needed, or installed software on, to also do something valueable. Now it seems like the vast majority of the needs and requirements to ru…

Calling it useless is a really big exaggeration. The license is applicable to both software running on the server and on your client (browser) so I have no idea how you can say it is "useless". Maybe less powerful is what you're looking at? I mean security is orthogonal to "free as in speech" software. I would interpret RMS for the person writing/using the software on the server moreso than the person logging with a browser.

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

#547

Post by vharuck »

maratc wrote: post #502
vharuck wrote: post #494

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not all social problems, just those where the people involved have opposing goals. And even then, it's not so much a no-go as unlikely to work. We can tackle problems like advertising and recruiting for local hobby groups. But people will actively subvert, exploit, or ignore software meant to enforce social norms. Anti-cheating software restricts what honest users can do, and cheaters will find a way around it if the…

> just those where the people involved have opposing goals. This describes every competition ever; person A wants the winner to be A, but person B wants the winner to be B. Should we stop doing doping tests at Olympic games, as it's an application of (non-free) technology to a social problem?

Medical tests are only part of the solution there. They would be worthless without the more important component: a trusted third-party tester. As we've seen with DMCA takedowns on YouTube, an automatic third-party arbiter ends up favoring one side. Usually the one who learns to game it.

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

#548

Post by stakkur »

viktorcode wrote: post #283
stakkur wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is in the question: the game dev wants to know how to reconcile ethics and his desire to make money from making games. Stallman is saying “it’s not my job to help solve your dilemma.” And he’s right. If I ask a doctor ‘how can I eat french fries and still lose weight”, the doctor will say “you can’t, and I can’t help you resolve your dilemma. What you’re doing is unhealthy”.

Only he's wrong. He's supposed to be the top expert behind Free Software movement, nobody else can answer that real-life question better than RMS. An idea that's inapplicable to reality even in principle is worthless.

Except that he did answer his question. Which is different than helping him solve his dilemma.

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

#549

Post by belorn »

charcircuit wrote: post #508
belorn wrote: post #402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a misunderstanding here over how server side vs client side movement work. I will illustrate this with an example: With Client side movement, Player A sends in even intervals their location to the server. Let say they move right for 3 unit of time, the location get updated from 0:0, 0:1, 0:2. The server then relay the information to Player B. With Server side movement, Player A tells the server they want to…

Even with that implementation of server side movement it will still mess up by fake lag adding jitter. Player A may send 0:0, 0:1, -, -, -, 0:2 0:3 0:4 0:5 The location for 0:2 that B would have been wrong via your approach. If player A's actual location at 0:2 isn't about the same B will miss his shot.

With server side movement, player A do not send coordinates. The server does the movement of players.

Imagine you are talking over the phone to someone who is driving, given them directions. That is server side movements. If you suddenly stop talking, the car doesn't just stop, nor does the traffic. All you have accomplished is that the driver is no longer getting any further instructions from you.

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

#550

Post by forgotmypw17 »

exciteabletom wrote: post #392
forgotmypw17 wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I kind of do this. I avoid using currency and have no credit cards but once in a blue moon need to buy something from online.

If I may ask, what is the reason you place these restrictions on yourself? Do you have a moral objection to centralised currency?

Initially, I set out to have more time for my passion projects, which meant spending less time working for money, which, in turn, meant lowering my upkeep costs. I started unsubscribing from one thing, and then another, until, one day, I noticed that it has been days or weeks since I'd used money.

I wondered if anyone else was doing this thing, and I found freganism, "The Man Who Gave Up Money", etc.

And digging deeper into this, I realized several things after pondering them for a while:

a) I'm now operating in large part on my karma, and using money is almost always a karma negative. When I exchange one dollar for something, I'm setting in motion a whole chain of events to which I am karmically connected, most of which are negative.

b) When I work for money, all I get is the money. If I work for an employer for five years, all I have at the end of those five years is the money, which I am, honestly, not capable of managing well, something I have accepted about myself after so many years. On the other hand, if I abandon money, I have time to work on my relationships, something which pays infinitely better.

Post reply on HN