51–60 of 253 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't forget Red Hat, a company that makes it living from FOSS, apparently now also hates FOSS...
There’s multiple angles. I think RedHat is more for PR for IBM. I don’t think it’s binary in that RedHat is owned by a company that has other motivations than when RedHat was independent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So, you're either forced to defend Richard Stallman and accept what's going on over there, or __YOU ARE THE ENEMY OF ALL OPEN SOURCE__. Where did they say that, or anything that implies that?
> "Our opponents wish to destroy Free Software" Surely if you're OK with that, that heavily implies you are an enemy of open source? I think it's quite a reasonable rephrasing.
I'm not convinced they want to destroy Free Software either however.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, it's because it puts restrictions on use. Open source does not.
The GPL does put restriction on use. If you make modification to the code and do not share those modifications, you are constrained from using the code you modified. And those constraints are for political reasons. The Four Freedoms are a political ideology about how software, developers, and users should morally interact, and the GPL exists as a legal tool to support this political ideology. Edit: clarification - by…
No, it does not. It places restrictions on redistribution, not on use. You can use it no matter who or what you are.
> If you make modification to the code and do not share those modifications, you are constrained from using the code you modified.
Incorrect. You can modify and use it to your hearts content. You are only required to share your modifications source if you distribute the modified software.
From the linked article: > Our opponents wish to destroy Free Software > Our opponent’s true target is not Richard Stallman; their real aim is to destroy the FSF by thoroughly infiltrating it (like they already have with organisations like the OSI and Linux Foundation). These people even started an online petition calling for RMS’s forceful removal and for the entire board of directors at the FSF to resign from their…
> So, you're either forced to defend Richard Stallman and accept what's going on over there, or __YOU ARE THE ENEMY OF ALL OPEN SOURCE__. Where did they say that, or anything that implies that?
Or are you concerned about their usage of open source in place of free software? They quite plainly state principles which are also shared with the open source movement are what they're defending, even not accounting for their colloquial synonyminity.
Software that removes the freedoms of its users is a moral injustice and the FSF has always fought against such injustice. I don’t see how capitulating to lies to satisfy a witch hunt based on slander, and thereby perpetuate an injustice, would help strengthen FSF’s commitment to fighting against the injustice of proprietary software. If all it takes for the FSF to stand by injustice is a misinformation campaign and…
- Stallman is a divisive figure, with questionable opinions outside the realm of free software, opinions he published himself, willingly.
- He multiple times ignored the contributions of women, and did so after being corrected.
- Lots of women feel uncomfortable close to him due to his behavior. Some of that may be involuntary.
- The board reinstated him without an announcement, prior discussion involving the broader community. The announcement surprised everyone except the board and the host event had do clarify they were not part of it.
- He refuses to acknowledge how all these things damage the reputation of the FSF.
All this could be avoided by doing absolutely nothing. He resigned, after all.
> The list that attacks Richard has Microsoft, Google, OSI, Linux Foundation, Gnome Foundation and Ethical Source people on it! These people oppose Free Software ideologically What ? The Linux Foundation ? It opposes Free Software ? Did I misunderstand this sentence ?
Don't forget Red Hat, a company that makes it living from FOSS, apparently now also hates FOSS...
From the linked article: > Our opponents wish to destroy Free Software > Our opponent’s true target is not Richard Stallman; their real aim is to destroy the FSF by thoroughly infiltrating it (like they already have with organisations like the OSI and Linux Foundation). These people even started an online petition calling for RMS’s forceful removal and for the entire board of directors at the FSF to resign from their…
> So, you're either forced to defend Richard Stallman and accept what's going on over there, or __YOU ARE THE ENEMY OF ALL OPEN SOURCE__. Where did they say that, or anything that implies that?
That's just hysterical garbage. RMS did this to himself by being an abrasive asshole and failing to curb his autistic tendencies. As a major thought leader, he ought to know better.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, it's because it puts restrictions on use. Open source does not.
The GPL does put restriction on use. If you make modification to the code and do not share those modifications, you are constrained from using the code you modified. And those constraints are for political reasons. The Four Freedoms are a political ideology about how software, developers, and users should morally interact, and the GPL exists as a legal tool to support this political ideology. Edit: clarification - by…