News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Open Source Initiative bans co-founder, Eric S Raymond by mjevans on Tuesday March 10, 2020 @06:20PM (#22540445)
The part under discussion appears to be a quoted earlier message; HOWEVER I would much prefer a link to a message plausibly at least to be from the same server as ESR's other messages.

I would like a link to the source, rather than someone saying a given source happened to send X.

I could not in a quick 5 min of searching through Eric S. Raymond posts on that thread, see the actual source that is quoted.

Re:Open Source Initiative bans co-founder, Eric S Raymond by mjevans on Tuesday March 10, 2020 @08:22PM (#22541567)
Viewing that archive by date #1 and searching again, I cannot locate a message plausibly within range of the timestamp #2 of the supposed "Quoted" content.

#1 https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists...

#2 ""On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 1:09 PM Eric S. Raymond <esr at thyrsus.com> wrote:""

Before potentially defaming anyone I would very much like a reference to the actual words they said, and would hope everyone else similarly judges based on confirmed content.

Re:Open Source Initiative bans co-founder, Eric S Raymond by aeturnum on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @11:36AM (#22546669)
In the same previous thread, people say that the offending emails were deleted from the OSI archive[1]. This seems, to me, like a very bad move for exactly the reasons you're highlighting here.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22518473

Re:Open Source Initiative bans co-founder, Eric S Raymond by mjevans on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @10:10PM (#22552899)
This is problematic because as I point out without an __IMPARTIAL__ __witness__ that I can trust to relay the truth, no matter how horrid, all I (we) have to go on is the hearsay of others.

For example, the source you link may have just attempted to reconstruct the message based on what can be seen in the reply. However the chain of authenticity has been extended to contain those who may have motive to unfaithfully reproduce or even fake a/the message. We can't know as the transparency of the archive is now also in question.

Edit:

Under the assumption the reproduction is faithful, my own personal OPINIONs...

Calling someone a loonytoon is uncouth, deserving a brief lecture for attacking someone rather than debating the ideals they happen to believe in at the current time (or in the past if it's a clear reference to such). (Edit 2:) Also in that paragraph, there's a term I'd hesitate to Google for not knowing it's meaning offhand... I'm not sure how good/bad it might actually be.

The vividly disgusting and offensive description (which could very easily have been added in the quoted reply) of rat* (censored) is something that a rational adult just shouldn't use on such a forum. If that's what OSI acted on, they really should be more transparent about it as well as their decision process.

Most of the version you linked on TechRights is otherwise speech that should be protected and encouraged. It is a protest and valid expression of feelings; save for some charged language.