Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Richard Stallman To Continue As Head Of The GNU Project

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    I once had a brief conversation with Stallman where I said there are certain types of software where you really need paid developers because you need predictable management. So I proposed a model where paying customers would get the software as a binary package and the source code would be kept in escrow until the software had been financed and then released to the public as fully Free Software. I remember being confused by his response, because he acted as if I had said something that was factually false. So I tried to explain what I had meant, but he just told me he got it and I was wrong. He just said he really didn't care if people makes a living, but in my opinion, that would make Free Software a permanent hobby rather than something that would affect printer manufacturers.

    That's when he lost me for the first time. I mean, I really respect his accomplishments, but a leader of a movement just can't behave that way if he wants it to grow, as I do. However, I do think it's a very good thing that we have groups that are really rigid and fundamentalist when it comes to rights and freedoms. It's easy to rationalize things and having people remind us what the goal is, is a good thing. It's also a good thing to have people pushing the envelope on what's possible using fully-free software. He lost me again a couple of times later, but that was in private, so I'll keep it that way.

    I cannot imagine one possible reason for me to care what Stallman thinks about sex.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by trizio View Post

      Look, the FSF is a private entity, they can do what they want as long as they respect the rules. I don't know anything about their internal rules, but if it is a serious organization they can remove one of their members if he or she violates them, or compromises in any way their interests. There's surely some sort of procedure they can follow in cases like this. Then again, if Stallman's removal was illegitimate, he can sue them.

      Now, freedom of speech doesn't imply that you can say what you want and there are no consequences whatsoever. Stallman said something I can actually agree with as a matter of fact, but that doesn't mean that his removal was illegitimate. He said what he wanted to say, he's not in jail, his opinion is not censured and he can repeat that as much as he likes. That's freedom of speech.

      This reminds me of that guy working for Google. If I'm not mistaken he wrote an idiotic post against female engineers in the company forum. It's the same thing. The guy spoke his mind, he's not in jail, and he can continue to defend his trashy argument. That's freedom of speech. Google decided to lay him off, because... the heck, how can you manage a guy like that?

      That said, mine were ad hominem attacks. True. I don't like socialists, I don't like communists, I don't like fascists. I like to trash them in public, though. I'm exercising my freedom of speech. I can be banned from this forum nonetheless, because maybe I'm violating some internal rules by writing this. If I got banned, it doesn't mean that the admins or moderators are compromising my freedom of speech.
      How much that makes sense in your opinion? Is that not predatory society? Is that in your opinion a free society? How it can be a free society if you need to be on your toes about what you write? Yes, it can't be a free society, it can only pretend to be a free society in motivational propaganda speeches and in the minds of apologists.

      Comment


      • #33
        Some people think that, RMS is not "a perfect guy" for the Job, only because he is some sort of "a hippie fan"..
        • From the business point of view,
        That's correct because companies require greedy people, Sauvage Capitalism to the extreme..
        the one that is most greedy wins..but that also means corruption..
        • From the Ideological point of view,
        Its wrong, RMS have proven to continue loyal to the Principles he started defending decades ago.
        Even tough that he does not copy the majority of "Social Standard Behaviour", He managed to stay loyal to its Ideology, for so many years..

        I think its better that he stays the head of Gnu Project..
        A lot of people have posted videos, only to laugh at..

        I will post one, for those who like to hear, and think..

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by trizio View Post
          Now, freedom of speech doesn't imply that you can say what you want and there are no consequences whatsoever.
          You are absolutely right. In fact it is not part of freedom of speech, the freedom to defame a person.
          For example, saying that "RMS defended Epstein" is a clear example of defamation:
          1) because it is false;
          2) because it is said with a malicious intent.
          Defamation is a crime, not freedom of speech.
          Maudit
          Junior Member
          Last edited by Maudit; 27 September 2019, 08:42 AM.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by moilami View Post

            How much that makes sense in your opinion? Is that not predatory society? Is that in your opinion a free society? How it can be a free society if you need to be on your toes about what you write? Yes, it can't be a free society, it can only pretend to be a free society in motivational propaganda speeches and in the minds of apologists.
            I really don't want to chat with a frustrated whiner. Life is short, so get used to the fact that reality is not what you want it to be and try to carry on like the rest of us.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by alcalde View Post
              Heck, the man used to live in his MIT office! Instead of worshiping him, people should have been taking care of him and getting him some help so maybe he could live a normal life.
              He is one of the best AI scientists - and I know many people who slept in university institutes till getting a notice that this is not welcome (me included).
              Only people doing basic research can understand this ... as total commitment to a good thing!
              And if `normal life' would mean living without using ones brain (by using hard drugs etc.) I would not agree that this is a positive thing - would you?

              Open source and public domain is not enough - these models had long existed.
              It started with companies creating HW and putting SW with source code to it as the HW was sold, SW was just added.
              And most changes had been done in universities from scientists (BSD and copyright infringments, anyone?) ... NOT the industry.
              RMS was one of those many people contributing to Unix as a scientist.
              After the company hiring nearly the entire AI scientists RMS did something extraordinary. Not just keeping the original source code and improve on it. When even university was no longer interested in that SW not supported by the industry, RMS decided to create GNU.
              An entire operating system to be capable of freeing the users - as he directly saw the reasons behind industry no longer wanting to share.
              His vision was that no one can be locked by SW any more - and HW was typically free as clean design.
              So this dark history was much warmer and brighter than conditions today with Intel ME (or AMD PSP) and Minix running unpatched at higher privilege than root, thanks to Intel.

              THIS VISION is "FSF" and THIS is "GNU" - and MIT license is just an invitation for evil companies getting the code, add things to it and enslave the users.
              In that time it was only a genius who could see the problem. Nowadays we are enslaved - can be espionaged by HW running SW no one knew about its mere existance - any evil secret service no longer under ANY democratic control but having no red line can misuse it as can do criminals.
              Many companies exist getting personal information and misuse them - similar to criminals. The differences get more and more blurred - till no difference can be seen at all.
              That's the reason Apple is much more problematic than Google. Google never lied about what they are doing - it's not good but at least everyone knows about it.

              Maybe many technical people till that day can not see what goes wrong - but many does.
              Scienticsts had been aware of costs of getting access to publications - and physicists were first to forcing absolutely free access to publications by preprint servers which were undermined by special journals.
              The essential things - air, water knowledge - must be totally free to everyone and all states. Other conditions will seed anger, hatred and force.
              And eying the current state of the global society GPL is the biggest achievement in SW regime concerning human rights.
              I don't mind that many won't get it. Saying that other licenses are more permissive (which is true concerning allowing to enslave people).
              I would not permit murder ... or any crime.
              In former times I would have pointed to Alan Cox which seemed to have a good ballance between free and open source.
              Currently I would present opinions of Linus B. Torvalds and Richard M. Stallman, discuss the pros and cons in the light of the news and leaks and let students decide what they think is appropriate.

              That's all I wanted to say - RMS was true to his vision - and it is a really important one for human rights.
              And concerning his habits - he is a human and lives his life. This is the right of every one - and everyone can be insulted:
              "Semper aliquid haeret." after Plutarch (~45 - ~125).
              This entire story seems to be defamation - otherwise someone has to accuse and a judgement would be in order.
              But its just evil instincts which are addressed ... that's no good for anyone.
              As long a human being is not convicted to have committed a crime one should not be restricted or forced to resign from anything ...
              I am not saying that this has been the case here - I could not get any piece of information I would trust right now.
              And this is the state of current journalism. That's a shame!

              Similar to open source: companies try hard to get rid of GPL and FSF - they try to put as many restrictions in place as the can.
              GNU libc, GCC, GPL - are not welcome by those companies ...
              But now we know - and if mankind will not react to this thread, it will deserve slavery.
              The worst nightmares got real - companies and even entire countries - can just be excluded from knowledge and important products - just by blaming to be a thread to national security. Who is next in line?
              Is this segregation really welcome by the entire international society? Or are all people no longer interested due to fake news.
              Or stop reading after 5 words as they were trained to (greetings from psychologist Iwan Pavlov)?
              We will see what's happening - but currently I do expect things getting worse ...

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by trizio View Post

                I really don't want to chat with a frustrated whiner. Life is short, so get used to the fact that reality is not what you want it to be and try to carry on like the rest of us.
                Is that your standard type of response when you absolutely do not have any arguments and know you are going to lose the intellectual ground in a very embarrassing way?

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Maudit View Post
                  You are absolutely right. In fact it is not part of freedom of speech, the freedom to defame a person.
                  For example, saying that "RMS defended Epstein" is a clear example of defamation:
                  1) because it is false;
                  2) because it is said with a malicious intent.
                  Defamation is a crime, not freedom of speech.
                  Stop playing keyboard lawyer, you are not very good at it.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    The amount of people in this thread who seem to think "free speak" means free to say whatever you want and treat other people however you want is disturbing. Grow up you petulant toddlers.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by dreich View Post
                      That's OK. Hopefully microsoft, GNOME etc, will find a more suitable candidate to lead the FSF.
                      Pretty sarcastic comment...

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X