Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

3

edmund_the_destroyer wrote

I would add that some people from all sides of the political spectrum rage against Stallman for having political views that do not align with their own.

But I think the important point is that copyleft free software is completely compatible with most political philosophies. The only exceptions are authoritarianism and plutocracy.

So I don't have to care if Stallman likes some aspects of capitalism or if some other Linux contributor thinks Hillary Clinton would be a great president, I can still use emacs and the Linux kernel, respectively, for anything I want. That's a far cry from proprietary software in which the vendor locks down what I can or can't do with it.

-1

hjek wrote (edited )

So I don't have to care if Stallman likes some aspects of capitalism or if some other Linux contributor thinks Hillary Clinton would be a great president,

I know you're not claiming that, but just for the record, RMS has been endorsing Jill Stein and actively discouraged voting for Hillary as the "lesser of two evils". In his words:

Donald Trump Praises Dictators, But Hillary Clinton Befriends Them.

2

edmund_the_destroyer wrote

Well, I'm being pedantic but I wrote "or if some other Linux contributor thinks Hillary Clinton would be a great president", so I wasn't implying that Stallman supports Clinton. And the Green Party still supports capitalism, they just want more regulation than the Democrats. Stallman isn't a socialist or anarchist.

-1

hjek wrote

1

ziq wrote

Too bad he also makes creepy pro-child rape arguments.

0

hjek wrote

This?:

Zack Anderson's life has been turned into hell because he had sex with a 14-year-old who said she was 17. Now Indiana is grasping at straws for excuses to put him on the sex offender's list for 25 years. Excuses such as that a minor started working at his church and was there when he was.

The normal occupation of human adolescents is sex. This case demonstrates what everyone should already have known: a human of age 14 can consent to sex, even seek it out. Claims to the contrary are false, and when these claims appear in a law, it's a lying law.

The term “statutory rape” is a reflection of this lie. It means, “We know that wasn't rape, but we will pretend it was.”

Adolescents can be bullied / tricked / bribed into sex. So can adults, as the recent accusations against Weinstein and others demonstrate. It could be useful to do something to help people of any age resist such pressures, on the occasions when they would rather not have sex. However, denying the fact that people also do have sex voluntarily is not the solution.

3

ziq wrote (edited )

Stallman:

I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children.

Stallman:

There is little evidence to justify the widespread assumption that willing participation in pedophilia hurts children. Granted, children may not dare say no to an older relative, or may not realize they could say no; in that case, even if they do not overtly object, the relationship may still feel imposed to them. That's not willing participation, it's imposed participation, a different issue.

Stallman:

necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia ... should be legal as long as no one is coerced. They are illegal only because of prejudice and narrowmindedness.

https://stallman.org/archives/2012-nov-feb.html#04_January_2013_%28Pedophilia%29

http://www.michaelridley.info/blog/2006/6/10/richard-stallman-on-pedophilia.html

https://bryanostergaard.com/blog/2018/07/26/why-gnu-linux-is-the-operating-system-for-pedo-positive-users/

3

celebratedrecluse wrote

Google Chrome is based on open source software, as are many proprietary bits of surveillance code that we rely on.

The tech companies just milk the open source communities for their free labor to cut their own costs, find fresh talent. Then, they repackage that labor as a privatized commodity.

The tragedy of the commons is that it is surrounded by the system of enclosure.

2

edmund_the_destroyer wrote

Copyleft, as you probably know, is the term for software licenses that force redistributed versions of the software to include source code and to remain under the same license. That includes the various forms of the GNU Public License (GPL), Eclipse Public License (EPL), and Mozilla Public License (MPL).

Permissive licenses like the MIT, BSD, and Apache license are software licenses that allow redistributed versions of the software to be under a proprietary license without source code.

The best way I've seen it phrased is this: "Copyleft is free as in freedom. Permissive license is free as in labor."