Sometimes I wonder what the Free Software movement would have been like if the spearhead was not a weirdo.
I know a lot of free software people and they are fascist, NED regime change type libs who think they are smarter and better than everyone else. Many of them have backgrounds working for the government in some degree or another, and then they move on to NGOs and the like.
For some reason libertarians also love free software which makes no sense. You would need a powerful state to enforce free software licenses.
yeah they have totally incoherent ideologies which are all centered around selfishness, and again, thinking they are smarter and better than people who don’t know whatever they know. They reinvent eugenics every time.
what do you mean free does not means free of state?
You would need a powerful state to enforce free software licenses.
How? Why?
How would you enforce any license without a state? The point of a license is that when someone violates it you can take them to court. The judicial system is a part of the state.
Free software is defined as software that allows the end-user to use, distribute, and edit it in any way they choose.
Can you give an example of a scenario when police would enforce a violation of that?
That’s not the extent of software freedom. You can personally modify someone else’s free software if you want. But if you are providing the modified software to others, either as a free or a paid product, then you have to provide the users with a copy of the modified source code. Modifying GPL licensed code and using it commercially without supplying the modified source code is the primary source of free software license violations.
deleted by creator
It wouldn’t have gotten off the ground. Often it is the “weirdos” (eccentrics, passionate people) who move things along.
the zizek of computer sciences.
deleted by creator
Free and open source software is essential to a healthy tech space. It decommodifies technology and creates an alternate digital space outside of the big-tech capitalist’s hands. Stallman’s contributions toward this space cannot be denied and I appreciate those efforts. He is a bit dogmatic about how he approaches free software though and that doesn’t help the space. However the man himself is a piece of shit outside of tech, through and through. He has defended all manner of sexism, harassment, SA, racism, etc. Just seems like some bigoted libertarian creep to me and he should not be revered even if his work in free software has materially benefited the world.
I like his views on sharing source code, not really fond of most of the rest of his opinions and I feel like the movement, as a whole, should move on from him as a figurehead.
He defended Epstein
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Early in the thread, Stallman insists that the “most plausible scenario” is that Epstein’s underage victims were “entirely willing” while being trafficked. Stallman goes on to argue about the definition of “sexual assault,” “rape,” and whether they apply to Minsky and Giuffre’s deposition statement that she was forced to have sex with him.
Yeah nah, there’s only so much libertarian rhetoric I can take as a good faith arguments
deleted by creator
It seems to me that he is far too bothered by the terminology. “Sexual abuse” also works without an “assault” and it makes sense for a court to differentiate between the two. But I would expect a lawyer to get lost in the terminology, but I don’t know why Stallmann is so interested in it.
deleted by creator
If Stallman wants me to believe that he’s naive enough to believe that victims of sex trafficking feigning consent is the same as consensual sex, I have to question all of his claims
deleted by creator
The slogan “Stallman was right” is a good slogan because his only redeeming feature is that he’s right.
There are many things that he’s not right about.
He has one core message. He’s right about that. He has no other redeeming features.
