41–50 of 126 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Without RMS most of the software you are currently using wouldn't work. He has orthodox manners and is an extremist for freedom but "terrible harm" is a lie.
I am sure it would work just fine.
Is his comment based on outdated information? I just checked and github appears to recognize a few dozen ( https://help.github.com/en/github/creating-cloning-and-archi... ) license types including gpl2, gpl3 and lgpl
RMS argues against licensing under only a single version of the GPL obviously he prefers "GPL2 or later" and "GPL3 or later" does github offer that?
There is some awful stuff in that thread, like this gem [1]: After microsoft puchased Github, they encouraged "Codes of Conduct". So now 40k "opensource projects" hace CoC's. Obviously men won't be contributing to said projects, other than the people allready in them. [1] https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnu-system-discuss/2019-1...
We won't. You can't force me to contribute to your project and if it has such a coc I just won't.
Is his comment based on outdated information? I just checked and github appears to recognize a few dozen ( https://help.github.com/en/github/creating-cloning-and-archi... ) license types including gpl2, gpl3 and lgpl
RMS argues against licensing under only a single version of the GPL obviously he prefers "GPL2 or later" and "GPL3 or later" does github offer that?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am sure it would work just fine.
It mainly would not exist. Or if it did it would be very different.
There are lots of FOSS advocates who were turned off to the whole movement because of him; what might they have done with him absent?
That said, GNU and the GPL have been very helpful, sometimes instrumental, in fostering and protecting open source code and developers, so I'll put up with his ivory tower vision for the practical benefits it's brought us.
Call him crazy (and he probably is), but he's been a net benefit to society, which is a lot more than most achieve.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We won't. You can't force me to contribute to your project and if it has such a coc I just won't.
Sounds like your contributions won't be missed, and that the CoC is working as intended.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We won't. You can't force me to contribute to your project and if it has such a coc I just won't.
? I'm very confused. "coc" is a "Code of Conduct" document right? How is that you're opposed to CoC _in general_?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think he really just speaks his mind, I'm not sure he is trying to be edgy or anything, he always had quite radical ideas and positions. I mean people have been calling him a lunatic for years, he has been fighting for free software and warning people about proprietary software and the obvious risks it carries. Despite being proven right about quite a lot he warned about, people views never really changed about him…
What exactly do you consider radical about his position in this instance?
Here's a paraphrased version of what he's saying:
"GitHub [...] has done terrible harm to our community.
GitHub was so bad for free software, all along[.]"
Now, if you were to define "our community" as the open source community, this would be laughable - very few people would argue that open source software has been terribly harmed by GitHub (on the contrary, the rise of GitHub has seen many projects flourish). I don't necessarily think he means the wider open source community, though - he's referring to his own Stallman flavor of free software.