3 ms·

Can you be specific in how you think he is behaving unintelligently, and what you think that people will do in response to his actions?

otterley 2mo ago
I'll bite. His statements in this very forum could he used against him as evidence of intent to violate the law, should he be prosecuted someday. There's a reason why lawyers generally advise their clients to remain silent.
- dooglius 2mo ago
  > There's a reason why lawyers generally advise their clients to remain silent. Most people prioritize their finances (and non-imprisonment) over their rights, and attorneys will optimize for that expressed preference. GP has clearly indicated his priorities are different. That has nothing to do with intelligence. Someone having a different set of values than you does not constitute unintelligence on his part.
  - kube-system 2mo ago
    GP said they wanted to take it to court. I presume that means they wanted to win, in which case the best strategy is to discuss the issue in private with an attorney before making public statements that could undermine your ability to win. If the actual priority here is advocacy, with no real desire to litigate, then I'd buy that.
    - JoshTriplett 2mo ago
      Exactly. More power to anyone who wants to fight this. But if the goal is to win that fight, do a better job of fighting, rather than acting like "oh, I have a structure that prevents me from complying" will somehow magically make a court go "eh, nothing we can do".
    - lrvick 2mo ago
      I am calling a bluff as a form of advocacy. There will never actually be any litigation because this law is a joke and should be treated as such.
lovich 2mo ago
Pretending like technical limitations protect him from being in violation of the law like another commentator made an analogy to handcuffing yourself to property you were told to leave? His comments on this thread itself which establish intent to not comply with the law? All power to him for going with his morals but he’s making unforced errors and should instead be contacting one of the several activist legal firms that would at least give him advice on how to protect himself and not follow through with this law if not outright pro bono legal defense.
lrvick 2mo ago
No one is asking me to add code to stagex right now, so there is no actual legal situation I am in. I am not even an owner of the project, I founded the project, but am now just one of many volunteer contributors. Are they going to mandate wikipedia volunteers alter pages to state guidelines as well? We must not be afraid of stuff like this. It is blatant overreach I do not expect would stand legal challenge. I am simply saying I would refuse to write code I do not want to write. I am honestly surprised people think this is such a scary thing to say. The point of saying this publicly is not in order to harm or help my own defense of a court order from another state I will probably get. It is to signal to legislators that if they decide to take this fight, it will be done with people not afraid to do it all in public to establish public trust. It is not even okay that people -think- it is possible for our FOSS projects to be altered or backdoored by any random state officials. What next, asking Torvalds to add KYC to the kernel?

otterley 2mo ago

I'll bite. His statements in this very forum could he used against him as evidence of intent to violate the law, should he be prosecuted someday. There's a reason why lawyers generally advise their clients to remain silent.

dooglius 2mo ago
> There's a reason why lawyers generally advise their clients to remain silent. Most people prioritize their finances (and non-imprisonment) over their rights, and attorneys will optimize for that expressed preference. GP has clearly indicated his priorities are different. That has nothing to do with intelligence. Someone having a different set of values than you does not constitute unintelligence on his part.
- kube-system 2mo ago
  GP said they wanted to take it to court. I presume that means they wanted to win, in which case the best strategy is to discuss the issue in private with an attorney before making public statements that could undermine your ability to win. If the actual priority here is advocacy, with no real desire to litigate, then I'd buy that.
  - JoshTriplett 2mo ago
    Exactly. More power to anyone who wants to fight this. But if the goal is to win that fight, do a better job of fighting, rather than acting like "oh, I have a structure that prevents me from complying" will somehow magically make a court go "eh, nothing we can do".
  - lrvick 2mo ago
    I am calling a bluff as a form of advocacy. There will never actually be any litigation because this law is a joke and should be treated as such.

lovich 2mo ago

Pretending like technical limitations protect him from being in violation of the law like another commentator made an analogy to handcuffing yourself to property you were told to leave? His comments on this thread itself which establish intent to not comply with the law? All power to him for going with his morals but he’s making unforced errors and should instead be contacting one of the several activist legal firms that would at least give him advice on how to protect himself and not follow through with this law if not outright pro bono legal defense.

lrvick 2mo ago

No one is asking me to add code to stagex right now, so there is no actual legal situation I am in. I am not even an owner of the project, I founded the project, but am now just one of many volunteer contributors. Are they going to mandate wikipedia volunteers alter pages to state guidelines as well? We must not be afraid of stuff like this. It is blatant overreach I do not expect would stand legal challenge. I am simply saying I would refuse to write code I do not want to write. I am honestly surprised people think this is such a scary thing to say. The point of saying this publicly is not in order to harm or help my own defense of a court order from another state I will probably get. It is to signal to legislators that if they decide to take this fight, it will be done with people not afraid to do it all in public to establish public trust. It is not even okay that people -think- it is possible for our FOSS projects to be altered or backdoored by any random state officials. What next, asking Torvalds to add KYC to the kernel?