Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Richard Stallman Reportedly Steps Down As Head Of The GNU Project

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

  • #51
    Originally posted by ElectricPrism View Post
    People should know this man is incredibly smart and incredibly dumb or disabled at the same time.
    They could do one better and realise that virtually every person on earth is smart about some things and dumb about others. Most people even admit it.

    Comment


    • #52
      These times where unchecked facts + echo chamber is enough to take down important people are scaring me. All based on an emotional reaction a chain of people are taking advantage of:

      - some shadow people (probably corporate) want to take down someone; assemble a shocking out of context quote from obsolete times. Made even simpler when the target is controversial, even a little.
      - viral effect comes out of this "infected news" which are lazy journalist's favorite food.
      - regular Joe read this news once, twice, and all of a sudden, it's everywhere. He believes it, trusting that "so many sources can't be all wrong". Scarily enough, shitting on the target even becomes "cool". You become one of those humans that care about a better future by taking down hidden villains.

      I felt chills going down my spine writing this. Truly scary.

      Comment


      • #53
        Originally posted by Zoll View Post
        This really gives new context to Free Speech, which many western societies seem to take pride in. Oh sure, you can speak whatever you want, but be prepared to be dragged through the mud and have you career ruined for anything you say that does not conform to our sacred social norms. It's quite hypocritical.
        The angle to freedom of speech is it has two dimensions: censorship (whether people will actively prevent and filter bad opinions) and accountability (whether you can say whatever you want with no consequences). Former is clearly what western world desires not to have but with latter it's not so clear. While many countries have laws on extreme levels of hate speech (that tend to be aimed preventing harm toward ethnic or such groups, not individuals), governments are really careful with these and laws typically require some level of physical danger involved. The care is because it's quite easy accountability results in censorship. It does not necessarily have to, depends on level of punishment. Is RMS ending up from a valued if eccentric member of the society into an unemployed homeless person a just punishment?

        I would say communities are just as much if not more to blame of the current situation for putting people on pedestals as dehumanized icons of what you want to believe in.

        Comment


        • #54
          Originally posted by nanonyme View Post
          I would say communities are just as much if not more to blame of the current situation for putting people on pedestals
          I would agree it's a factor, but saying they're "just as much if not more to blame" is an interesting way to shift blame away from the people with doing the actual hatchet job.

          Comment


          • #55
            Originally posted by fsfhfc2018 View Post
            It's a well-known fact that free software advocates dispute the concept of the freedom of monopolies to take freedom away from users. "Not really" in your post just means "I have a different opinion than free software advocates." Considering that copyright/restriction (or lack thereof) of software throughout most of human history is on the side of software freedom, perhaps your "Not really" could prove that there is a natural right to the temporary monopolies outlined in Article I, Section 8 (where Congress is granted the ability to create laws that restrict such freedoms.)

            It's a compromise designed to "Encourage the progress of science and the useful arts" and not a freedom (or right) at all.[/URL]
            I'm not a lawyer, just a software developer, and previously GPL-fanboy programming hobbyist. As, that "GPL-fanboy", I liked idea of must-publish source-code, from perspective of "taker", where I liked availability of software to all people poor/rich. However, as father feeding family via software development, I realize the need to be rewarded for work. Software is developed for months for "free", until it's finished (to usable degree), and then sold/made-available. GPL's viral requirement to publish source code, allows competitors to just copy the source-code and use it without the having to invest their own resources into research and development. Therefore, months of previous development get unpaid. So, GPL heavily enforces "free" as in free beer, and not "free" as in freedom of speech.

            In the end, software is a tool, or toy. And, if user/customer benefits from having the tool, he pays for it,... I like "charity aspect" of free software solutions available to end-users, but we don't live utopia, that freedom (as in free beer) can be enforced for one type of goods - software, because developers also need to get paid to acquire other types of goods needed for their survival and happy living.

            Comment


            • #56
              I propose People's Committee of Clean and Just World to get power to evaluate which songs, books, movies, poems, writings and sayings contain, may contain, is hidden between lines, could feel triggering, may offend someone etc. etc. etc. to get a power to destroy any said works and arrest & detain entities responsible of said works including but not limited to their relatives.

              Comment


              • #57
                Originally posted by kravemir View Post

                I'm not a lawyer, just a software developer, and previously GPL-fanboy programming hobbyist. As, that "GPL-fanboy", I liked idea of must-publish source-code, from perspective of "taker", where I liked availability of software to all people poor/rich. However, as father feeding family via software development, I realize the need to be rewarded for work. Software is developed for months for "free", until it's finished (to usable degree), and then sold/made-available. GPL's viral requirement to publish source code, allows competitors to just copy the source-code and use it without the having to invest their own resources into research and development. Therefore, months of previous development get unpaid. So, GPL heavily enforces "free" as in free beer, and not "free" as in freedom of speech.

                In the end, software is a tool, or toy. And, if user/customer benefits from having the tool, he pays for it,... I like "charity aspect" of free software solutions available to end-users, but we don't live utopia, that freedom (as in free beer) can be enforced for one type of goods - software, because developers also need to get paid to acquire other types of goods needed for their survival and happy living.
                Cool story bro!

                But what you do here? You try to undermine Free Software because you see it as a threat of you being able to feed your kids? You and likes of you are going to replace Stallman's presence?

                Seriously man What is your agenda other than spreading proprietary propaganda?

                Comment


                • #58
                  "Live and let live" vs "Conform or be canceled"

                  Who will win?

                  Comment


                  • #59
                    Originally posted by moilami View Post

                    Cool story bro!

                    But what you do here? You try to undermine Free Software because you see it as a threat of you being able to feed your kids? You and likes of you are going to replace Stallman's presence?

                    Seriously man What is your agenda other than spreading proprietary propaganda?
                    My agenda is to contrast idea of enforced freedom to acquire software for free (as in free beer), without having to pay for it. And, that "freedom" is enforced by GPL in viral way. Who wants to take, should give/contribute. Freedom to acquire things for free is beneficial only for lazy people,... What's agenda of FSF forum warriors/supporters? To take/acquire software for free?

                    Comment


                    • #60
                      GPL is not harming any professional software developer. You release a piece of software as GPL if you choose so, nobody forces it on you. If you choose not to, what the GPL does is forbidding to use GPL code in it. And that's not an issue, because you are not in any way entitled to get that code and use it for profit.

                      If you are developing free software, the GPL allow sharing it while preventing others from taking your work and selling it as their own. They are allowed to modify, improve, and share it back though.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X