(ℹ) Join us now at the IRC channel | ䷉ Find the plain text version at this address.
| *rianne_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer) | Apr 15 00:03 | |
| *liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds) | Apr 15 00:08 | |
| *rianne_ (~rianne@host81-154-169-167.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell | Apr 15 00:11 | |
| *liberty_box (~liberty@host81-154-169-167.range81-154.btcentralplus.com) has joined #boycottnovell | Apr 15 00:11 | |
| schestowitz | [04:16] <xxxx> Hm, FWIW… "Nikita Orlov" may have been a bad example in http://techrights.org/2021/04/09/hate-always-backfires/ | Apr 15 05:51 |
|---|---|---|
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-techrights.org | Hate Letter Against Richard Matthew Stallman (RMS) Backfired So Spectacularly That Signers Asked to Revoke Their Own Signatures and the List Was Then Frozen Permanently (Updated) | Techrights | Apr 15 05:51 | |
| schestowitz | [04:17] <xxxx> If I recall correctly, he was removed after it was suspected that he was a troll because, the issue said, he was rude and insisted on Russian. | Apr 15 05:51 |
| schestowitz | [04:17] <xxxx> as if he didn't want them to see he was rude | Apr 15 05:51 |
| schestowitz | [04:18] <xxxx> But (if it was that person) he removed a troll signature | Apr 15 05:51 |
| schestowitz | [04:18] <xxxx> the issue: https://github.com/rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io/pull/2551#issuecomment-811535777 | Apr 15 05:51 |
| schestowitz | [05:51] <schestowitz> thanks | Apr 15 05:51 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-github.com | Rewrite Russian texts #2 by andrewshadura · Pull Request #2551 · rms-open-letter/rms-open-letter.github.io · GitHub | Apr 15 05:51 | |
| schestowitz | https://stallmansupport.org/comments-in-support-of-richard-stallman.html | Apr 15 06:31 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-stallmansupport.org | In Support of Richard Stallman - Comments in Support of Richard Stallman | Apr 15 06:31 | |
| schestowitz | " | Apr 15 06:31 |
| schestowitz | I’m sorry. I didn’t read your article because the first thing you said is literally incorrect. He did not suggest than any of Epstein’s victims willingly prostituted themselves. He suggested that, from Minsky’s perspective, the victim may have appeared willing. | Apr 15 06:31 |
| schestowitz | There’s a decent argument over whether he should have even discussed this, but please represent the problem correctly. | Apr 15 06:31 |
| schestowitz | https://fossforce.com/2019/09/yesterdays-man-the-fall-of-richard-stallman/#comment-22595 (Retrieved March 29, 2021.) | Apr 15 06:31 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-fossforce.com | Yesterday's Man: The Fall of Richard Stallman | FOSS Force | Apr 15 06:31 | |
| schestowitz | Don Barry | Apr 15 06:31 |
| schestowitz | Byfield’s typically slippery and dishonest reply misrepresents both the facts and the social responses to the witch-hunt against Stallman. Byfield’s own career has followed no particular defense of anything save his own interests. | Apr 15 06:31 |
| schestowitz | It is unsurprising that he would jump on the current bandwagon and declare a “consensus” against Stallman—a consensus which exists only in his mind and in the minds of a currently au courant group of upper-middle-class aspirants who would reduce all social issues to gender and race. | Apr 15 06:31 |
| schestowitz | Stallman has proven right time and time again on issues of software licensing. His views on other areas (many of which I disagree with), are of little concern to me, and in any event are his right to express. The wholesale suppression of speech and “cancel culture” is not a healthy development, and in fact is intended more broadly to suppress political thought outside the pseudo-left promoted by the Democrats to eclipse the | Apr 15 06:31 |
| schestowitz | actual left. | Apr 15 06:32 |
| schestowitz | I support Stallman. History will show who leaves the greater imprint. And the organizations who have broken with him for their own petty economic and careerist reasons have already reduced themselves to coattail-chasers, contributing nothing novel or of enduring value. The role of the SFC is particularly despicable in this—the actions of the opportunists at Gnome, of Google and Apple and RedHat careerists, are on the contrary | Apr 15 06:32 |
| schestowitz | completely predictable. | Apr 15 06:32 |
| schestowitz | And I no longer support the FSF, despite Stallman’s (mistaken, in my view) hope that they will prove capable of maintaining his vision without him. The current political climate, among the social layer from which the board has been drawn, does not have the ability to maintain the firm independent vision that Stallman has. The climate that allowed such organizations to be created and grown in the 1980s is considerably different, | Apr 15 06:32 |
| schestowitz | given the commidification of free software. | Apr 15 06:32 |
| schestowitz | If Stallman forms another organization, I will support it and him. For the moment, I call for the casting out of figures like Bradley Kuhn and others who did not close ranks in defense of Stallman from the FSF board. They no longer enjoy my confidence. | Apr 15 06:32 |
| schestowitz | https://fossforce.com/2019/09/yesterdays-man-the-fall-of-richard-stallman/#comment-22643 (Retrieved March 29, 2021.) | Apr 15 06:32 |
| -TechrightsBN/#boycottnovell-fossforce.com | Yesterday's Man: The Fall of Richard Stallman | FOSS Force | Apr 15 06:32 | |
| schestowitz | " | Apr 15 06:32 |
| schestowitz | https://matrix.org/_matrix/media/r0/download/matrix.org/izpSXlSJcnmKyAJezXajuInI/message.txt | Apr 15 10:30 |
| schestowitz | " | Apr 15 10:30 |
| schestowitz | Where do you get that "getting a patch upstream" is part of open source? The entire point of my comment above is that that doesn't have anything to do with open source! Even the strict definition from the open source foundation that everyone always refers to () does not contain such an idea. | Apr 15 10:30 |
| schestowitz | As far as free software is concerned, that is a completely different concept. If we look at the 4 freedoms: | Apr 15 10:30 |
| schestowitz | freedom 0: The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose. | Apr 15 10:30 |
| schestowitz | Yup, there are no restrictions on how or where you can run Chromium. | Apr 15 10:30 |
| schestowitz | freedom 1: The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish. Access to the source code is a precondition for this. | Apr 15 10:30 |
| schestowitz | Yup, totally possible with Chromium, source is freely available, although the licence is somewhat complex (but that is not an error on Google's part, simply a consequence of the fact that Google hasn't written Chromium completely on its own). | Apr 15 10:30 |
| schestowitz | freedom 2: The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others | Apr 15 10:30 |
| schestowitz | I have certainly seen a few mirrors/sources with compiled Chromium binaries gezien, so certainly possible. | Apr 15 10:30 |
| schestowitz | freedom 3: The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others. By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this. | Apr 15 10:30 |
| schestowitz | A lot of companies and individuals do this, so certainly possible. | Apr 15 10:30 |
| schestowitz | It sounds nice and all to say "It is definitely not in the spirit of free software, if you as an individual, in practice, cannot exert your 4 freedoms anymore.", but 'random individual contributions' is totally not a requirement in open source or free software. There is no "right to contribute". | Apr 15 10:30 |
| schestowitz | And by the way, in the first place it is not correct either that you cannot contribute to Chromium. Of course Google employees make the project management choices, but it is fully well possible to contribute to Chromium. With e.g. AOSP (Android) that is a bit different, I believe. That doesn't make AOSP (Android) less open source, maar it is definitely worth criticising more. On the other hand with Chromium the dialog is always very | Apr 15 10:30 |
| schestowitz | open and input from the outside is usually quite welcome (I have shared my feedback often enough for implementations of new standards). | Apr 15 10:30 |
| schestowitz | " | Apr 15 10:30 |
| schestowitz | >> gemini://gemini.techrights.org/2021/04/12/supporting-rms-with-a-meme/index.gmi | Apr 15 12:44 |
| schestowitz | > Awesome. | Apr 15 12:44 |
| schestowitz | > | Apr 15 12:44 |
| schestowitz | > Nice video you made yesterday. We noticed that the home page of stallmansupport.org that showed up in the screen did not have the two banners that are supposed to be there: one is call to sign the support letter, the other one is a welcome notice. | Apr 15 12:44 |
| schestowitz | > That's why it was hard for you to find the link to the support letter. | Apr 15 12:44 |
| schestowitz | > | Apr 15 12:44 |
| schestowitz | > I think we are having issues with nginx refusing to read the include files for some reason. We are investigating. | Apr 15 12:44 |
| schestowitz | > Thank you Roy! | Apr 15 12:44 |
| schestowitz | > | Apr 15 12:44 |
| schestowitz | > | Apr 15 12:44 |
| schestowitz | > You comments and articles of support are greatly appreciated. Thank you. | Apr 15 12:44 |
| Techrights-sec | see "rms-gnu-goals.transcript.txt" on TR | Apr 15 14:09 |
| schestowitz | Thanks, will add. I did not want to bother you by asking. BTW, do you think there's room for an RMS interview with us regarding patents alone (to avert flak)? | Apr 15 14:09 |
| Techrights-sec | Yes, patent coverage is always important. | Apr 15 16:24 |
| schestowitz | Hi Richard, | Apr 15 16:26 |
| schestowitz | I know there are higher priorities at the moment, but would you mind doing an interview strictly about patents and software patents with us? I've been covering the subject for many years and it ought not attract/draw much flak from the so-called 'cancel mob'. | Apr 15 16:27 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.6 | ䷉ find the plain text version at this address.