Can we get GNU philosophy on the frontpage, there's to many newfags

Most free software licenses are based on copyright, and there are limits on what kinds of requirements can be imposed through copyright. If a copyright-based license respects freedom in the ways described above, it is unlikely to have some other sort of problem that we never anticipated (though this does happen occasionally). However, some free software licenses are based on contracts, and contracts can impose a much larger range of possible restrictions. That means there are many possible ways such a license could be unacceptably restrictive and nonfree.

We can't possibly list all the ways that might happen. If a contract-based license restricts the user in an unusual way that copyright-based licenses cannot, and which isn't mentioned here as legitimate, we will have to think about it, and we will probably conclude it is nonfree.

Attached: Encerramento do FISL 16.jpg (5760x3840, 1.38M)

imagine being deluded enough to believe anyone would seriously read these walls of text

Just because /v/irgins have a short attention span doesn't mean that every lurker here doesn't read. Even a partial read would offer more understanding to these sinners.

This should be in the sticky.

The freedom to quote is the "free beer". You get that freedom with the Apache License or the MIT License and that kind of freedom is why people use open source code.

Now the cancerous GPL that forces you to make your own speech public as soon as you quote someone, that is Stallman's contribution. And that is the reason why big companies ditch anything GPL altogether, even LGPL.

Yeah, I'm not a hardcore GPL fan either, but it's basically using the strategy of proprietary licences but in reverse. Which I think is smart to have in some cases to make sure that there is a core of packages that can't be used by the proprietary camp.
If you're only using free software to begin with then there is no problem. It's a protective shield for a set of packages to make sure that they can only be used with respect to the users freedom. It might be more restrictive than MIT or BSD licences but I think it was a necessary strategy for the free software and brought us to where we are today.

brought us where? you can credit the success of open source to two things:

- websites like github offering free online storage for open source code
- programmers and companies who want to have a public portfolio or make other companies use their code until they need help, at which point they will hire the original programmer as consultant

Stallman only set the process back by making anything open source looking like a bad scheme and thus scaring business-people who are making decisions.

Stallman laid out the foundation of free software and inspired thousands if not millions to atleast think about the problem.
Without Stallman we wouldn't be where we are today. Who cares that some business people got scared, that wasn't the original target group anyway. It was hackers that build the tools and identified with the principles that Stallman stand for. I agree that without Open Source we wouldn't have big companies contributing resources, but without free software we wouldn't have many of the great projects we have today.

You can criticize Stallman all you want but he's a necessary evil.

youtube.com/watch?v=Dn8gealMDsg

HAHAHA FUCK NO

GNU is getting scrubbed from linux anyways, and the GPL with it. In 10 years no serious implementation of the linux kernel will be using GNU coreutils LMAO.

In 10 years I will be running GNU coreutils on my GNU/Hurd system

dis :^)

>Now the cancerous GPL that forces you to make your own speech public as soon as you quote someone

This is a common misconception. You are perfectly free to fork GPL software, change it, and provide those changes to no one, so long as it's just for personal use.
It's only If you distribute your modified program that you are obliged to provide source too, which is perfectly reasonable.

check the sticky retards

>migrates to his containment platform
this cant happen fast enough

>instrument of unjust power
nice marxist lingo you got there, commie

""""libre"""" software is an abomination. it presumes that the lazy user class has any moral right to tell the productive creator class to tell what and how they should create

this is pure collectivist terror. when the parasitic many enslave the creative few.

fuck that. fuck gpl. fuck stallman. start up the rotors!

Attached: hoppecopter.jpg (606x873, 95K)

>It's only If you distribute your modified program that you are obliged to provide source too
so I'm being forced to provide the source? that's much "freedom", wow very "libre"
fucking authoritarian lefties I swear

>moral right to tell the productive creator class to tell what and how they should create
I wonder how many LSD have been used for this opinion. Ignorance is bliss.

It's not illegal for the productive creator class to create something and keep the internals secret. But it's easy for the creator class to sneak some malicious trickery inside the something to exploit the lazy user class. That's why the smart not so lazy user class should use free and open somethings made by productive creator people that don't have anything to hide and proudly display there internals.
I mean the popular saying is "what do you have to hide?" shouldn't that also be true for the productive creator class's made somethings? Unless the productive creator is an elitist power hungry, scared to collaborate guy, he should have no problem opening up his creation and sharing it with other productive creators to improve the creation itself in a natural and unobstructed way.

Does a developer have any freedoms, or is it just for the user?

>we want freedom!
>but also we want to implement "nothing to fear nothing to hide"

>On the frontpage

Even Pol Pot have better idea what is communism than you.

>Does a developer have any freedoms, or is it just for the user?
The developer is free, unless he modifies proprietary or copyleft software
>we want freedom!
>but also we want to implement "nothing to fear nothing to hide"
How else are we sure that the software we use isn't mistreating our freedom?

You... are actually defending "nothing to fear nothing to hide"?

While online?

...and on Jow Forums?

For software and hardware I use yes, how else can I ensure that there isn't a way for malicious entities infringe my privacy and start surveiling me. To mantain personal privacy you have to be sure that the tools your using aren't malicious.

>to maintain personal privacy, we must uphold "nothing to fear nothing to hide"
Ok.

>Wah, why can't I fuck my users in the ass and deny their freedom

I sure as hell have something to fear if others are hiding things from me.

We should just provide a copy of rms essays to everyone.

I want the gnu fags to leave

Not for citizens you retard, for the tools we use. Is it too difficult for you to understand, how else can you trust something if your not allowed to study it.
I'm against the infringement of peoples privacy and against whenever a government is using nothing to fear nothing to hide as an argument for some privacy breaking law. The government should fear it's people, trust should be earned not forced.

I want the new fags to leave

thanks dood learned from this thread

Attached: tumblr_n07hkatXLw1somw7ho1_500.png (500x382, 195K)

np dood

copyleft commies need to fuck off

All these points about free software sound good in theory. Suppose now I am a programmer with a great new idea for a program which I then create. How do I make money off of my work? Sure I can sell copies of the program. But what is stopping the first buyer to then redistribute it for free?

Sell the binary, put up easy donations on your site or programs webpage, start a patreon or something similar, kickstarter.
It isn't really that difficult, people will pay money voluntarily for great software and those who don't are the ones that would've pirated your software anyway.
I donate all the time.

Why does Stallman dress the same as Umiko?

Attached: serveimage.gif (640x360, 3.13M)

Because Umiko is Stallmans waifu

>sell the binary
You mean as in keeping the source code open for everyone to see, but have people pay for not having to compile it themselves?

i read them and appreciate them being posted. i don't think GNU is going to change the world, but i think the world would be better for adopting free software. it gives freedom to end users at the expense of developer/owner freedoms. Companies/governments already have too much control, i'd rather end users be more empowered if its a zero-sum game.

From the outside it's like watching a twin beat up his brother, nobody can tell who's who because their differences are so subtle.

Attached: 12038054_780488622060374_4986593445894008244_n.png (481x556, 472K)

In your fantasy reality were kings and barons considered "creators" and surfs/farmers/smiths "collectivist parasites"?

Attached: 1519657682965.png (300x300, 137K)

Ok Jow Forums, humour me here.

I fully support the GNU philosophy, I think it's a brilliant vision and I think Stallman is perhaps the tech version of Jesus himself sent down to save us. But...
Now that we're past the 'wild west' days of tech and the internet in particular, GNU/Linux has already established itself as a more than viable option for individuals seeking free software, what is there to be done that isn't fundamentally systemic? This might trigger a lot of the types on Jow Forums, but hear me out - the problems that Stallman has with tech are really fundamentally a result of the pursuit of profit. Control by governments too yes but I would argue that this is just an extension of the former, as power is nothing without money, which is real power.
I just feel like there's way too much emphasis placed on individual action against surveillance and pushing for FOSS to be dominant in society. I think everyone knows that will never happen without a shift in the way society works, without abolishing the profit motive. Without these things, the concepts of copyright abolition or a decentralized internet won't even be things we have to fight for, they'll just naturally be what people do because they're what makes sense, and there's no one around to lose out on money from them anymore.

Basically what I'm so confused about is how can Jow Forums be so against proprietary software, surveillance etc, without understanding where these things come from in the first place, and widening their analysis to the whole of society?

Attached: headphone setup.jpg (3304x2195, 2.18M)

>English is such a 3rd world language they don't have a different word for 'free' in free speech

Yes, if you want to make it a bit inconvenient for free users to get it. But the binary will be spread anyhow because people.

Attached: Bait_ba3788_5907668.jpg (900x618, 64K)

I don't disagree with your central point, but want to point out that "real power" isn't money - money is only useful as a type of control, which is what we really want - to control our environment and other people. We want to make it more secure, enjoyable, plentiful, etc.

Attached: 20292818_1374053006042988_2413896438341803176_n.png (960x960, 567K)

The systemic issues are that consumers are dumb and get played by power hungry companies / people all the time, a lack of education. You're implying that the profit motive is bad. I would agree otherwise because it's a huge motivator for people to get a job and be productive.
Also it's a persons own responsibility to what he spends his money, if he buys something that doesn't allign with his moral code that's his fault. The only way to find out if something alligns with your moral code is if you know the source of the products. But people are sadly lazy and don't want to be using to much mental energy to find out who, how, and where something is made.

Laziness exists for sure but to blame laziness for this sort of thing is ironically very lazy. Many people don't have enough time to investigate where things come from. Industrial society currently has workers working as hard as ever and now with two adults full time to support a household often necessary. Of course people could do more and better, but anyone painting broad strokes like "laziness" is looking for a unicorn to blame.

I would argue that it's impossible for society to truly have control over itself - and by extension the individual to have control over themselves too - while money, or capital, exists. It's a social construct that exists above society that has the absolute final word in what decisions we make personally and as a society, because the pursuit of money is the overarching goal. The best example of this I can think of off the top of my head would be the 2008 financial crisis - not the most powerful individuals in the world had any control over the behaviors of money, and we were forced to comply with it's 'demands' if we were to continue living under the economy we do.

People have always been dumb, people always will be dumb. We can blame them for making bad decisions and not being as autistic as the average Jow Forums user sure but that doesn't contribute to actually changing anything.
Plus how can you argue that it's money that motivates people while posting on a board that supports GNU/Linux and general open source software, shit people voluntarily sink hours into on their own account for no pay because it's what they're passionate about?

>how can you argue that it's money that motivates people while posting on a board that supports GNU/Linux and general open source software, shit people voluntarily sink hours into on their own account for no pay because it's what they're passionate about?

not him but I can explain: open source developers write stuff for themselves, they are their own target audience, and then they happen to share with people or search for collaboration from people who have the same goals. That's why most open source software is catered to developers, not for the average nodev.

But everyone here knows full well that Ubuntu for instance is probably even better for someone's grandma than windows or mac. It's trying to cater to consumers - market forces - that makes things shit.
Also, on the topic of motivation and profit, this video is quite relevant: www youtube com/watch?v=dgKKPQiRRag

Well okay maybe it's not laziness but rather the huge inconvenience it is for people to find the source and know where their money is going. We lack transparency for consumers to make informed decisions. When we're in a store we just see a product, a price and maybe some marketing. We don't see what the working condition of the makers are, the piechart to where our money is going, how and where the resources where obtained, etc.
This is mainly due to rapid industialization globalization, because back in the day most people bought stuff locally from people they knew. We have to go back to that way but in a contemporary way and I think we're slowly getting there. Finding information about stuff you spend money on is getting more and more convenient.

>frontpage

You realize we don't all agree with this lunatic right?

OS >>>>>>>>>> FS

Okay I was a bit quick and elitist by calling other people dumb and lazy. It's not their fault that they don't want to waste time and obsess over things like the regular Jow Forumsentlemen. The thing that's lacking is convenience like I explained here: . For example most people would be vegan if they would see a webm of the slaughtering of the animal everytime you buy a piece of meat (I am vegan BTW) compared to a webm of a machine plucking and processing plants for meat substitutes.
This is the power of open source, people judge not the final product but the whole process.
If people saw they get a cheaper computer if they bought it without windows then most poorfags and greedy bastards would be running linux (I run arch BTW)
>how can you argue that it's money that motivates
Okay this isn't true for everyone but there are quite a lot of people who look at things from the surface. They don't care about cultivating anything deeper. They simply care if it will make them money. (Brought the people are dumb back again, kek)

I'm glad you picked yourself up on that user, I considered pointing it out but figured it would just get us off topic.
>They simply care if it will make them money.
I mean yea you're right here but I would say that's just a product of the profit motive in the first place. If we were to reorganize society to be based on what we find useful and enjoyable rather than merely what's profitable, I feel like the problem your describing here would go away as a result. The main argument you see against abolishing the profit motive is that no one will want to innovate anymore, but again history just kind of spits in the face of this, and furthermore the video I linked here explains how just offering people more money to do something doesn't linearly make them 'innovate' more either, it's way more nuanced.

I don't get what you want to replace the profit motive with, are you advocating for communism?
>If we were to reorganize society to be based on what we find useful and enjoyable rather than merely what's profitable
I think this is doable with a change in our education system, I find the current education system pretty static/rigid education where everybody is assigned a class and have to follow the material whatever the teacher is teaching. Instead we should be teaching with a system similar to khanacademy where each student gets a profile and can, if they want, go further ahead in certain subjects than his classmates.
This profile should be part of an open system and should be from preschool to end of life. This profile would also be your ressume. Your profile contains the list of skills you posses. Jobs should be also less focused on full time employees and present their job openings through the open platform. People should easily find and apply for jobs on this platform and switch between them.

>are you advocating for communism
well er, at risk of triggering half of Jow Forums, yes. I only believe that Stallman's goals are truly attainable with the abolition of Capitalism, and it frustrates me that no one sees this.

I think your proposal of an alternate education system is good, I mean I'd personally support it, but I just don't think it's something that we'd ever see in the real world due to the way society works. Our current education system is actually just a product of the Capitalist mode of production to begin with, and I know this sounds crazy but the first instances of public education, in Prussia, were made explicitly to prepare children for the Capitalist working day. Modern education doesn't consciously do this for sure, but it uses the same structure, which is why school is so soul crushing.

>i don't think GNU is going to change the world
it already has changed the computing world

Daily reminder that Stallman is a fucking retard.
>I dasapprove open source
> is bad because it's closed source

I can imagine a world where profit isn't the sole motivator, but such a society can't be primarily materialistic - the people in it need to believe and agree that there is a greater purpose to them being around than hedonism and selfishness, otherwise money is the best way to achieve their goals and we'll all fall back to needing profit.

What i find interesting is that some people when their basic needs are met don't become lazy but actually seek out challenges and occupation, its as if healthy people not worried about meeting basic material security want to be useful to society as some kind of psychological validation.

Egalitarianism is never the answer, we people aren't equal in strength, intelligence, or sheer motivation. Without having some kind off currency in place we would be subject to a tyranny of a government. People want to earn stuff, they want to experience some sense of achievement. Without a currency in place we will be unable to decide who gets how many resources. Hierarchy is natural an necessary for society. With currency we climb the ladder.
Communism itself is unsustainable, there would be a need for central body that controlled everything, every resource every job, every piece of land. It would probably heavily rely on surveillance and a police state. Why would you want that?

This isn't true for everyone, most people that would have their basic needs covered would lack the sense of responsibility and just do whatever. Parties, drugs (I consider alcohol as drug), obsessively playing vidya, watching movies and tv shows, etc.
A sense of danger is needed otherwise people would never learn the merit of responsibility.

I think you extrapolated too much, i don't think egalitarianism is the answer, and yes, i think different capacities in people needs to be acknowledged. I also think there is a huge spectrum of luxury it could be acknowledge in. Since we're daydreaming anyway, in this utopic world we could spend a small portion of the money we spend on destruction and spend it on basics for everyone and leave plenty of capacity left over for a large grading or luxury based on capacity. Perhaps it would even be assigned on merit instead of based on inheritance or corruption?

I don't buy this false dichotomy of "commie or capitalism" and b4 im called "centralist" i think they are both evil. I don't want a police state (which i think we're rapidly heading towards) and i don't want anarchy. In my fanciful utopia people are fundamentally changed such that they don't seek power but carry it as a burden.

Good goy.

I think money and profit isn't in itself bad, rather I think it's good and useful.

This is why I didn't wanna bring up Communism from the start - you're strawmanning me based on your preconceived notions of what Communism is now and are completely off topic from my original point.

You are just conveniently forgetting 30 years of computing..

Software isn't inherently bad because it's closed source, it's bad because there are legislatures which forbid you from modifying it and/or releasing said modifications.

For example DMCA is noose on a already difficult legal problem regarding modification rights, it can be hard for companies to argue in courts that can you modify software or not, but if you protect your code with certain measures, DMCA forbids to break those measures and it also makes writing software to circumvent those measures illegal. DMCA criminalizes circumventing access control _regardless_ of copyright infringement issues.

Real question, how can you make a 'free' open source anti cheat?

It's Umiko who dresses the same as Stallman, silly.

Hey anons I've got a question. Why do people care if server side software is open source? If I only run free software on my machine and I control what information it sends, why should I care what server side software does with it? Also if the source code for the server is provided as far as I know there is no way to guarantee that it is what is actually running on the server.

Fuck off commie

the cold war era called, they want their bullshit back which you swallowed.

Why can't this faggot just fuck off already? Every time he opens his mouth he spouts something retarded.
>defending pedophilia
>defending necrophilia
>defending ddosing
>making every normie think that every Linux user is a pedantic autist with a tinfoil hat

>Stallman's goals are truly attainable with the abolition of Capitalism
bullcrap, stop feeding this myth

You don't understand that he is a perfectly normal left-leaning rebel academic. Those were everywhere for a while, they marked a radical paradigm shift away from the authoritarian/traditionalist mindsets of previous political generations.

Everyone is a wangblows faggot these days

Attached: fs.png (720x1017, 177K)