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

Post by knocte » Tue, Sep 24, 2019, 3:24 AM UTC

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.

Post by millstone » Tue, Sep 24, 2019, 3:27 AM UTC

scarejunba wrote: post #15

There's also the beauty in the point of Free Software: it's for freedom. This means it's okay that others profit. It's about you having power. That means you have the power to profit too. All you gotta share is the code for what you distribute. I like free software not because no one is making money. I like people making money. I like it because I can change it. That's important and everyone who gets upset simply bec…

Post by cat_plus_plus » Tue, Sep 24, 2019, 3:28 AM UTC

Frondo wrote: post #11

sn41 wrote: post #7

In the years to come, I believe free software will be recognised as one of the paradigmatic changes in how science itself is done. Now chemists and biologists have started talking about making data openly available and so forth. It's a shame that RMS has to spout forth on every issue, and in the current climate of outrage, science may have lost an important transformational voice. I think as a society, we need to cal…

The complaints about stallman aren't a matter of thoughtcrime, they're a matter of entirely inappropriate behavior, not just once but repeatedly, over the course of decades. This was the one that disturbed me the most: "Going to an RMS talk in the early 90s and meeting with him in person was among the worst of my experienced - I was fifteen, still obviously underage, and skipping gym class to hear him speak at a prof…

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Sep 24, 2019, 3:31 AM UTC

ryeights wrote: post #33

SolaceQuantum wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"an unrelated private message board?" Was this an unrelated private message board? I was under the impression it was on a mailing list at MIT.

The list is semi-private, CSAIL-affiliated students and faculty only

Post by malvosenior » Tue, Sep 24, 2019, 3:32 AM UTC

linuxftw wrote: post #54

malvosenior wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As you can see in this thread and everywhere else it’s been recently discussed, Stallnan’s actions have detracted from his message. Now we talk about pedophilia because that’s what RMS introduced to an environment that should be discussing free software. He failed his own message by doing that. No one else is to blame.

> Stallnan’s actions have detracted from his message. Now we talk about pedophilia because that’s what RMS introduced to an environment that should be discussing free software Do you have an original source, or are you just parroting what you heard in the media?