APOLOGIZE TO ESR

Exactly, RMS doesn't care about freedom. He doesn't care if you lose free speech, get fired by SJWs, or have your firearms taken away.

>3D printer software and firearms aren't technology
lol

>RMS isn't a politician
Nice joke, his entire career is built around a political philosophy

Could*
>Exactly, RMS doesn't care about freedom. He doesn't care if you lose free speech, get fired by SJWs, or have your firearms taken away.
Again, who gives a fucking shit even if it was true? This has nothing to do with technology or software.

>3D printer software has nothing to do with software
lmfao

Jesus fucking fucking Christ, here we go again with FSF = communism shitposting.
>3D printer software and firearms aren't technology
What does this have to do with anything? Who is arguing for this except you?

What would I apologize for?

>What does this have to do with anything?

ESR supports the freedom to use software how you want to create firearms.

RMS does not and supports gun control. He isn't concerned with practical freedoms.

>27 June 2016 (Urgent: Gun control measures)
>US citizens: call on the House of Representatives to adopt several gun control measures.

lmfao RMS is a fag

>ESR supports the freedom to use software how you want to create firearms.
>RMS does not and supports gun control. He isn't concerned with practical freedoms
Great. Again, neither of them are politicians. How can their personal views on these topics affect anything? When are you going to stop pretending these are anything other than Jow Forums threads in disguise? If you haven't noticed, this board isn't for discussing guns or politics. Stop.

Sowwy Ewic, pwease wet me in da bazzaaaahhhh

>How can their personal views on these topics affect anything?

Thanks for admitting RMS is irrelevant.

Code is speech. You are on the wrong side of history.

>guns aren't technology
Just because it isn't tech doesn't mean its not technology

>Protip: being free does not mean "the right to a job".
In your system freedom is not meaningful.

kill yourself mutt

imagine being this insane

Guns are tech. And even more so, CAD files for guns are tech.

Fuck, he looks old. I hope he'll be here still for some time, we need guys like him.

>People unironically shilling for ESR when his only two contributions to free software was a silly book and a CIA nigger GPS tracking module in Python, while RMS has spent a lifetime fighting for your freedoms.
I want Jow Forums to leave.

> APOLOGIZE TO ESR

> The term "open source" was first proposed by a group of people in the free software movement who were critical of the political agenda and moral philosophy implied in the term "free software" and sought to reframe the discourse to reflect a more commercially minded position.[12] In addition, the ambiguity of the term "free software" was seen as discouraging business adoption.[13][14] The group included Christine Peterson, Todd Anderson, Larry Augustin, Jon Hall, Sam Ockman, Michael Tiemann and Eric S. Raymond. [...] Raymond was especially active in the effort to popularize the new term. He made the first public call to the free software community to adopt it in February 1998.[18] Shortly after, he founded The Open Source Initiative in collaboration with Bruce Perens.[15]

No.

sorry for drinking the last can gramps

Attached: 489787.jpg (1200x1200, 100K)

>ESR
sorry firefox.

This literal boomer is begging for money on Patreon like some disgusting camwhore.
patreon.com/esr

Attached: ep013.jpg (890x310, 122K)

...

How retarded do you have to be to think that ESR is just tagging along?
This must be bait.

See and ESR never did anything substantial for free software. In fact, he did more harm to free software by popularising "open source" as an alternative to copyleft free software.

I know, right? He wrote a fucking _perfect_ port of Hunt the Wumpus.

Attached: esrdmr.png (560x923, 105K)

Doublekek

I agree with his popularising of open source. I personally don't think that the correct way of setting the precedent that it's better if your software comes with the source is to do it by having a license force you to do it. It gives everyone leverage to make fun of your license.
I am more interested in getting the source so I can modify it for my own purposes than having companies be forced to deal with a licensing mess when they want to use something you wrote. If they don't release the source then the solution is not a license which forces them, the solution is to not buy the software in the first place.
In the same light, I don't think there needs to be a law against shitty DRM practices, I would just prefer if laws defending shitty DRM practices were removed and if people stopped buying shit with DRM.

>there should be no laws regarding copyright and enforcing consumer protection, everyone should just be nice to each other, peace and love man
Cut the hippie utopia, it's not going to happen. We need laws and regulations that protect consumers and prevent corporate exploitation.

>there should be no laws regarding copyright and enforcing consumer protection
This is a straw man and you know it.
I said there should be no laws surrounding the protection of DRM systems. This specifically means that I don't want laws making it illegal to circumvent DRM.
DRM has nothing to do with copyright protection and everything to do with scraping more money out of normal consumers.
Additionally, copyleft has nothing to do with consumer protection laws and on the face of it nobody can "exploit" anyone when it comes to source licensed under an open source non-copyleft license.

Your literal words were
>I don't think there needs to be a law against shitty DRM practices
DRM should be illegal. Not making it illegal to circumvent it is a non-sequitur because DRMs in themselves are unethical and non-free.

>DRM has nothing to do with copyright protection
You were the one who brought up DRMs in the first place.

>Additionally, copyleft has nothing to do with consumer protection laws
Copyleft has to do with protecting against proprietary software. It forces derivative work to remain free as in the four freedoms. Proprietary software is harmful to the consumer by definition, because it infringes on the four freedoms. Non-copyleft free software is a dead-end and a deliberate diversion tactic employed by corporate shills.

>DRM should be illegal. Not making it illegal to circumvent it is a non-sequitur because DRMs in themselves are unethical and non-free.
Why? Why should it be illegal for a company to sell you a license to some content instead of the content itself. Why should it then be illegal to rightfully store that content on my machine for future viewing when the content would have had to physically pass through my machine to be watched under the DRM system anyway?
> You were the one who brought up
What did I bring up? Is it customary to cut a sentence off in the middle and ignore the second half so you can ask a dumb question or make a dumb statement?
> Copyleft has to do with protecting against proprietary software.
What protection do you need? Can't you just not use it?
> It forces derivative work to remain free as in the four freedoms.
Yes, but the four freedoms forfeit some freedom. I value the more absolute freedom more than the particular walled off four freedoms. I think the key to getting those four freedoms is not to enforce them but rather to get other people on board with your values.
> Proprietary software is harmful to the consumer by definition, because it infringes on the four freedoms.
But the writers of that software don't mandate its use. If your government forces you to use it the correct solution is to pester your government, not to push a software license.
> Non-copyleft free software is a dead-end and a deliberate diversion tactic employed by corporate shills.
I think this is an extreme position of insanity.

>Why should it be illegal for a company to sell you a license to some content instead of the content itself.
Because it's non-sensical. You buy a chair, you don't license the right to sit on a chair some times but only if it is in your kitchen and only between 13:00 and 19:00

If it's nonsensical, the solution is not to buy it.
The only reason companies get away with this nonsense is because consumers keep buying it. Isn't the solution, therefore, consumer education rather than legislation?
Maybe I could be persuaded that companies which sell this kind of shit should make it clearer to end users what they are buying, but outright outlawing it is just too far.