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

A Critique of the Open Letter Calling for the Removal of RMS

meribold.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 274 posts

Re: A Critique of the Open Letter Calling for the Removal of RMS

#71

Post by ex3ndr »

sokoloff wrote: post #42
johannes1234321 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A reason: Lots of software is licensed under "GPL V2, or newer" or "GPL v3, or newer" The Free Software Foundation can release a new version of that license, which will relicense all those works under those new terms.

As I read it, users will still have the option to choose the existing concrete license (ignoring “or later”), so if V4 became a restrictive license somehow, “V2 or later” is no more restrictive for users who don’t want it to be.

Starting from v3 no, thats why many projects are still on GPL v2

Re: A Critique of the Open Letter Calling for the Removal of RMS

#72

Post by TazeTSchnitzel »

tomxor wrote: post #33

At this point I think the most important thing is that mob rule is shown to not be the way. I don't know RMS, I don't even know much about RMS... but I have heard enough to know he's not the intolerant idiot he's been made out to be in these hateful letters. There are possibly other very reasonable criticisms for him being removed from his position, but the mob made that impossible to discuss now due to the overwhelm…

“I know nothing about the target, but he must be innocent!”

Re: A Critique of the Open Letter Calling for the Removal of RMS

#73

Post by insert_coin »

maweki wrote: post #53
henrikschroder wrote: post #32

> The primary author of the open letter, Molly de Blanc, writes on her personal blog: > > There is no space to argue over whether a comment was transphobic – if it hurt a trans person then it is transphobic and it is unacceptable. Ah, postmodernism! Where the words are made up, and intent doesn't matter!

In a sphere where we usually choose our names and expect other people to use them, instead of what's written in some official document, I don't see how chosen pronouns are any different. Honestly, it's not hard to call people what they want to be called. You might feel the line between innocent mistake and maliciousness has not been crossed. Other people do disagree.

The problem is you alone cannot be victim, judge and executioner.

Re: A Critique of the Open Letter Calling for the Removal of RMS

#74

Post by ZGDUwpqEWpUZ »

maweki wrote: post #53
henrikschroder wrote: post #32

> The primary author of the open letter, Molly de Blanc, writes on her personal blog: > > There is no space to argue over whether a comment was transphobic – if it hurt a trans person then it is transphobic and it is unacceptable. Ah, postmodernism! Where the words are made up, and intent doesn't matter!

In a sphere where we usually choose our names and expect other people to use them, instead of what's written in some official document, I don't see how chosen pronouns are any different. Honestly, it's not hard to call people what they want to be called. You might feel the line between innocent mistake and maliciousness has not been crossed. Other people do disagree.

The linked blog post says nothing about pronouns specifically, it's making a much broader statement that is clearly nonsense.

When you promote putting people on lists, bear in mind that some of us are happy to reciprocate. I certainly wouldn't want to employ someone who thinks "if it offends a trans person, then it is transphobic" is a reasonable maxim.

Re: A Critique of the Open Letter Calling for the Removal of RMS

#75

Post by dvfjsdhgfv »

simion314 wrote: post #36

I am afraid to put my name/email/github id in support of RMS because some mob in future will draw incorrect equivalence with whatever they want like "you support RMS then you are an X " where X seems to be a pedo. I am also wondering how many GNU/FSF haters are participating in just because they prefer MIT/BSD and see GNU as a cancer eating at their money making scheme.

The very fact that we're having this conversation now means the world has become a sad place.

Re: A Critique of the Open Letter Calling for the Removal of RMS

#76

Post by narag »

audunw wrote: post #37
yur3i__ wrote: post #4

As much as I like rms, I find it very difficult to move past his comments on child pornography[1]. [1] https://stallman.org/notes/2011-mar-jun.html#4_June_2011_(Bo...

From what I understand his actual views aren't that horrible. But it's almost as if he goes out of his way to write things in the most provoking way possible. He really has no regard for how a reader might interpret his text. Which is expected if he has some form of autism. I really think he should run everything he writes by someone who is more empathic. He is a public figure. He has a serious disability when it com…

From what I understand his actual views aren't that horrible. But it's almost as if he goes out of his way to write things in the most provoking way possible.

Stallman is an activist, the kind of person that intentionally provokes outrage to make a point and bring issues to discussion.

The bizarre part of all this saga is that he's being attacked by exactly the same kind of people using his very same tactics. It's like some of those Godzilla vs Kong movies.

Honestly I don't find this funny. But I don't care about it either. I had not heard much about the FSF last decade.

Re: A Critique of the Open Letter Calling for the Removal of RMS

#77

Post by TazeTSchnitzel »

henrikschroder wrote: post #32

> The primary author of the open letter, Molly de Blanc, writes on her personal blog: > > There is no space to argue over whether a comment was transphobic – if it hurt a trans person then it is transphobic and it is unacceptable. Ah, postmodernism! Where the words are made up, and intent doesn't matter!

We cannot truly know someone's intent. We can evaluate the impact of their words and actions. If you define words like “racist” and “transphobic” to be solely about professed intent, then you will find that bigotry seemingly doesn't exist.

Re: A Critique of the Open Letter Calling for the Removal of RMS

#78

Post by Andrew_nenakhov »

The 'open letter' language reeks with the odour of the Komsomol [1] assembly. It was a form of self-governance, where the missteped members were subjected to a court of their comrades, who unleashed their denunciation on the faulty offender, who had to stand in front of them in shame, listening to their dispraisals, and repent from his erroneous ways.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Komsomol

Re: A Critique of the Open Letter Calling for the Removal of RMS

#80

Post by junon »

krapp wrote: post #66
junon wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think both comments above have taken the argument to the extremes on both ends. OHO, I think RMS is making a point about the excuses governments and LEOs make in favor of censorship/anti-encryption - a good one, at that. OTOH, he does a pretty piss-poor job describing it in that blurb. I'm not convinced this is an argument in favor of child pornography. I'm simply choosing to believe it's poor wording on RMS's part…

Part of his argument is that there would be nothing wrong with possessing child pornography if it depicted consensual intercourse - and Stallman's (recently recanted on, to be fair) views that pedophilia is not harmful and that children can give consent and should be allowed to engage in sexual intercourse with adults are well documented. His general argument is a good one, even given how reprehensible child pornogra…

I don't think the originally linked blurb is implying everything you claim it does - unless you are trying to read between lines, something which I adamently do not do if I do not know the subject personally.

Do you have sources for the "well documented" views that pedophilia is not harmful and that children can give consent and should be allowed to engage in sexual intercourse? Because the blurb above certainly does not say any of that.

Post reply on HN