GNU General

Good thing games aren't part of the OS.

>So what? It's been shit for years now and they just make it worse.
You just don't like it. Stop acting like your malformed opinions hold any authority.
>It's just a fork, most of the work was done by upstream or in this case, Mozilla. They deserve more credit for any firefox fork than GNU deserves for any Linux distro.
Firefox does not allow use of the Firefox name and they demand no recognition for forks of their software. Take this issue up in the Mozilla general.
>The GPL loves corporations embracing free software as long as they give back. It'd rather have all corporations using free software in fact. If you hate corporations that much, the GPL is the wrong license for you. Other licenses allow you to add "For non-corporate use only", but not the GPL.
This has already been addressed in this thread.

I think it says something that most of the FSF-approved distros that are even remotely modern don't use GNOME by default. Newer versions of Ubuntu are the only distros I know of that use it by default.

The main reason that Mozilla and Firefox are nowhere to be mentioned is because Mozilla's software license limits distribution of modified versions to free of charge only unless all mentions of Mozilla and Firefox are removed, making it nonfree. They probably would give credit if they could.

Games are software. Just because they aren't a vital part of your operating system does not mean they don't enslave you. Not even auxiliary software should be allowed to be proprietary.

>Not even auxiliary software should be allowed to be proprietary.

Even Stallman says proprietary games are fine.

>Stallman says proprietary games are fine

Link? That's not something I'd expect to hear from a guy like him.

Someone brought it up during one of his talks and he said he considered games to be art so it wasn't morally wrong for them to be proprietary.

He never said anything like that.
gnu.org/philosophy/nonfree-games.en.html
>The problem with these games is not that they are commercial. (We see nothing wrong with that.) It is not that the developers sell copies; that's not wrong either. The problem is that the games contain software that is not free (free in the sense of freedom, of course).

>Nonfree game programs (like other nonfree programs) are unethical because they deny freedom to their users. (Game art is a different issue, because it isn't software.) If you want freedom, one requisite for it is not having or running nonfree programs on your computer. That much is clear.

BSD licenses are more free because they are more permissive.

I’d argue it’s the most free license out there, aside from WTFPL

No, he talks about game art. But games are still software, so you should not use them if they are proprietary.

He said that if you really want to play them it's better to do it on a free OS instead of a proprietary one, he'd still prefer the games to be free, too.

A game that uses a free engine with copyright artwork is proprietary.

Technicality but yeah I am being deliberately misleading.

copyright is intended to protect an artistic expression. If some software is asemonstration of that, the artist/programmer has every right to copyright it and must not be condemned for doing so.

meant demonstration

No, they are less free because they are permissive. Therefore, they allow corporations to take the code without giving back. So the net freedom is lower than when it began. The GPL ensures that corporations must give back when they take. This means that net freedom either remains equal to what it was, if the corporation forgoes using the software, or is increased if the corporation decides to agree to the terms of the GPL.
Copyleft is a form of copyright, but it uses copyright laws for freedom. That is how an artist should do it. They have the right to not care about freedom, but they do not have protection from condemnation for doing so.

>Copyleft is a form of copyright, but it uses copyright laws for freedom.
One time I forgot to breath while eating a PBNJ sandwich so I can relate to this sentence.

Drugs are bad.

Do you know what copyleft is? No. I know. Don't try to discuss things you don't understand.

>This means that net freedom either remains equal to what it was, if the corporation forgoes using the software, or is increased if the corporation decides to agree to the terms of the GPL.
No, if they don't use free software they have to make their own, which besides not being free also may be worse in quality and especially worse in following standards, which may make things worse for everyone.

python > sed & awk
python's matplotlib > gnuplot
git > diff
emacs > vim

t. python chad

Attached: xjkxzw801.gif (400x480, 85K)

Anyone who willingly uses free software should not be concerned with the harm it does. If they were concerned they would not use it at all. So they deserve any pain they get from using it.
It does not decrease the software, as it does not lose anything. Software under a permissive licence which is used without giving back the product is a loss of software which would have been gained under the GPL. By allowing the corporation to make their own software it is as if they never even looked at free software as an option.

forgot to add
ranger > midnight commander

Do you think reciting obvious things to someone with something intelligent to say somehow makes people care about what you are posting?

I find it more likely that the scope of discussion caused by your shitposting quickly outpaces your ability to keep up.

Attached: tard.jpg (1024x512, 71K)

>make their own
>not being free
Uhhh, that would be free if they're, ya know, writing the code. The only thing is that because the company owns it, they control when copies get distributed rather than the developers, which still technically aligns with "muh essential freedoms"

>No, they are less free because they are permissive

Pic related.

>Therefore, they allow corporations to take the code without giving back. So the net freedom is lower than when it began.

Wrong. The original i modified software is still just as free and available to download. It would make absolutely no difference to anyone if some corporate made a proprietary COPY. This is like the pirating copyrighted software, and how you stallmanites love to argue it doesn’t make a bit of difference. The same applies here too. It goes both ways.

>Copyleft is a form of copyright, but it uses copyright laws for freedom.
Ever hear the idiom “two wrongs don’t make a right”? The entire premise and foundation of copyleft software is based on copyright laws anyway. You’d end up using the very tool you hate so much and do exactly what those proprietary folk do; bar people who don’t share your best interests from attaining a license to your software.

Attached: 0CE54CC2-99B0-410C-A510-0B341FD92356.jpg (850x638, 71K)

You have no fucking control over the software used on all those devices that your internet traffic gets routed through. And yet, I'd rather they run on free and proven software instead of some homebrew shit.

>You’d end up using the very tool you hate so much and do exactly what those proprietary folk do
It's not the ideal solution, but getting copyright laws removed on software is pretty much impossible, so it's the best method so far. As for barring people who don't share your best interest, at least in this case it's to protect people, not corporations. From a utilitarian standpoint, copyleft is the greater good for more people

>Anyone who willingly uses free software should not be concerned with the harm it does. If they were concerned they would not use it at all. So they deserve any pain they get from using it.

Replace “free” with “proprietary” and you the exact same argument equally applies. You don’t sound convincing.

We weren't talking about prices. And even if we were, writing your own code still costs money.
Depending on what you want, even a lot of it.

I was referring to freedom as well. The company has the freedom to distribute copies of the program, when they wish.

>Software under a permissive licence which is used without giving back the product is a loss of software which would have been gained under the GPL

Wrong

Attached: 9E615F3E-DC07-4DFE-9766-5C24C5872380.jpg (349x274, 27K)

A company that doesn't want to use free code since they don't want to share their edits and instead writes its own code will share said code?
That makes even less sense.

You don't have anything to say. You haven't said anything yet and you won't in the future. You have not made a single claim in this thread, or presumably in your life, that has had any merit. You are not intelligent. You just have an inflated sense of self-importance.
>The original i modified software is still just as free and available to download
But the changes made by a corporation are not free. So you lose out on potential free software that a better licence would have granted you. Permissive licences just allow corporations to steal your work and exploit hard working developers.
>Ever hear the idiom “two wrongs don’t make a right”?
How is it wrong to use the law to protect software from exploitative corporations? It is protection.
>The entire premise and foundation of copyleft software is based on copyright laws anyway. You’d end up using the very tool you hate so much and do exactly what those proprietary folk do; bar people who don’t share your best interests from attaining a license to your software.
It isn't barring anyone. All it disallows is keeping software under a proprietary licence. With copyleft anyone is free to use the software for anything except making it non-free. It's like a public park, you can do anything within the law, but the park must remain public.
I would also rather they be free.
Free software does no harm.
It is lost because it would have been gained under the GPL. Try to keep up.

They probably won't share it, but you're not forced to share it under a free license. That's why whenever RMS lists freedoms 2 and 3, he says you can distribute WHEN YOU WISH. In this case, that would be never, but that's their choice

>I would also rather they be free.
Life is hard and you won't always get what you want. Get used to it.

>getting copyright laws removed on software is pretty much impossible

Wrong again. It is quite possible. All you have to do is buy the right to the software from the developer/copyright holder yourself and release it.

Oh, is that too hard? Does them keeping the rights to their own work sound unfair to you? Well if you think so, I demand you give up your house and car and computer for public use. Because the exact same principle applies. Rights to software are scarce, because it takes time and effort to create something new and unique enough that people bother to use it. Copying software is a privilege, not a right, and the very fact that you’d use copyright laws to enforce your dogma is proof of your hypocracy. You don’t get to say “it’s okay when I do it because it’s for the good of the people” just because YOU do it. Proprietary copyright holders can say the exact same thing which makes that argument very debatable.

>All you have to do is buy the right to the software from the developer/copyright holder yourself and release it.
Buying one program from one developer doesn't eliminate copyright laws as a whole, so not really sure where you're going there.
>Oh, is that too hard?
No.
>Does them keeping the rights to their own work sound unfair to you?
No.

Attached: 1378530590179.gif (500x288, 482K)

I despise defeatism.

>So you lose out on potential free software that a better licence would have granted you.

Wrong. “Losing” implies you had it at some point, but you can’t lose it since you never had it to begin with. “Losing” on some potential software in this way is exactly the same as “losing” it when the proprietary developer wasn’t aware of it to develop a derivative at all. You don’t lose anything. You merely did not gain it. There is a distinction.

>How is it wrong to use the law to protect software from exploitative corporations? It is protection.

First off, corporations operate on the premise that they provide a service based on a free market. No one forces you to use their services; if you don’t like it, don’t use it. The same argument applies to your free software and you explicitly stated that it earlier.
Secondly, it’s not wrong. Copyright software is intended to protect content creators. People’s livelihoods are at stake. The right to copy software is a right belonging to the original developer, and utilizing copyright laws to dictate who can and cannot copy your software is completely hypocritical when you are simultaneously asserting a moral high ground against copyright laws. Want to rebel against them? Then denounce them altogether and relinquish your copyright. Otherwise, shut up and acknowledge you’re just as evil as those content-creating corporations that utilize copyright laws. Don’t forget, proprietary software makes free software possible. UNIX was originally proprietary, and is the foundation to all unix-like operating systems such as gnu/linux and even gnu/hurd. You love to bash on copyright laws but forget that it enables content creators to secure their livelihood and even protect your protect the free software you love so much.

>Buying one program from one developer doesn't eliminate copyright laws as a whole

You are moving goalposts. First it’s “removing copyright laws on some software”, now it’s “removing copyright laws as a whole”. Again, you don’t do that by UTILIZING COPYRIGHT LAWS to enforce your free software licenses. If your goal is to eliminate copyright laws you should go vote for it or talk to your legislators and convince them to change or remove those laws, or move to a different country altogether.

No, to lose out is to miss out. Like how a sports team will lose out on the premiership. They could have had it had they played better, but their inadequacy caused them to lose out on it.
>First off, corporations operate on the premise that they provide a service based on a free market. No one forces you to use their services; if you don’t like it, don’t use it. The same argument applies to your free software and you explicitly stated that it earlier.
No, they do so within the confines of the law. But they can still exploit others.
>Secondly, it’s not wrong. Copyright software is intended to protect content creators. People’s livelihoods are at stake. The right to copy software is a right belonging to the original developer, and utilizing copyright laws to dictate who can and cannot copy your software is completely hypocritical when you are simultaneously asserting a moral high ground against copyright laws.
We use copyright laws to ensure that all derivatives of our software remain free in the future and do not go to help evil. We do not force copyleft on anyone, it is a choice.
>Want to rebel against them? Then denounce them altogether and relinquish your copyright.
Then there is no protection for freedom. You are the kind of person who thinks there should be no laws against slavery.
>You love to bash on copyright laws but forget that it enables content creators to secure their livelihood and even protect your protect the free software you love so much.
When did I bash copyright laws? I bash the people who keep their software locked down when it should be free.

>or move to a different country altogether.
Yeah, that's gonna help. Which country did you think of?

No, you use copyright to grow and maintain free software, then you kick out the dirty licences evermore.

No, to lose out is to miss out.

You must have quite the entitlement to honestly believe it was yours TO lose to begin with. Sorry, but no, you don’t get to claim ownership on things that don’t belong to you, let alone in content you did not yourself create or fund to create.

The fact is you do not lose it. Period. End of story. Argue you’re missing out all you want, but this is no different to missing out on some proprietary software some developer created completely on their own. The exact same logic applies here. And if you are going to say “oh no but they didn’t use my free software to develop it!” Then so be it, but now you’re making an internal inconsistency because now you’re making a different argument. You are no longer arguing that you are”’missing out”. And if you are going to argue you’re only interested in software that are derivatives of your own, then so be it, but you must also acknowledge that you have a motive to protect your work and are utilizing THE EXACT SAME LAWS to protect them as other proprietary folk that protect their work from you in the exact same manner. Also, you’d have to acknowledge that the very fact that you feel entitled to their work because it’s based off of yours makes you just as “evil and greedy” as the proprietary folk who would try to force you pay up in court because you are copying their software without a license for it. That perceived greediness the proprietary folk seem to have is the exact same entitlement you have when you demand all your copies to remain open.

GNU/Comrades, what is the status of Jow Forums's HURD resuscitation project

No, it isn't to miss out as miss out is said irrespective of the potential.
>You must have quite the entitlement to honestly believe it was yours TO lose to begin with. Sorry, but no, you don’t get to claim ownership on things that don’t belong to you, let alone in content you did not yourself create or fund to create.
So you believe that had the software used a proper licence (the GPL) it would not have ensured that derivative works remained free? That is empirically incorrect.
>you must also acknowledge that you have a motive to protect your work and are utilizing THE EXACT SAME LAWS to protect them as other proprietary folk that protect their work from you in the exact same manner. Also, you’d have to acknowledge that the very fact that you feel entitled to their work because it’s based off of yours makes you just as “evil and greedy” as the proprietary folk who would try to force you pay up in court because you are copying their software without a license for it.
That's what I've said the whole time. We use their laws against them so we can ensure that our software is not enslaved for their nefarious purposes. Copyleft is the best thing to stop corporations stealing the work we do in the confidence that it will be used only for ethically good purposes, as in purposes that involve freedom. I am entitled to the works they do as a derivative of mine. If they wish to use my work they cannot use it for evil. That is the law. It is good to prevent your software from being used for morally evil purposes.
>That perceived greediness the proprietary folk seem to have is the exact same entitlement you have when you demand all your copies to remain open.
Just because I want software to be free and they want software to be enslaved does not mean we are the same. We are opposites.

is gnu social free software?

Yes.

i guess i'm with the fsf then because i'm on a instance that host free software

>So you believe that had the software used a proper licence (the GPL) it would not have ensured that derivative works remained free?
I never even implied that. I’ll clarify to be even more clear. Your “free software” is not *as* free as you like to imply, not as long as you hold the copyright and enforce it. The MIT and WTFPL and public domain and other permissive licenses are more free by definition of what freedom is: liberty. The big question now is “to whom is this liberty directed toward, the creator or the users?” There are things that can be done in permissive licenses that cannot be done under the GPL, and there is nothing that the GPL license can exclusively offer which permissive licenses can’t. And before you argue “they guarantee your derivatives are free too”, you must realize it does this by restricting the USERS freedom, and granting power to the creators. That makes less free pretty much by the the definition of “freedom to the users”. Even if it’s done so in good intentions.

>That's what I've said the whole time. We use their laws against them so we can ensure that our software is not enslaved for their nefarious purposes.
You are missing my point. What I am saying is you are being a hypocrite by collaterally betraying your own principles in your attempt use copyright to enforce your ideology.

>Copyleft is the best thing to stop corporations stealing the work we do
I could argue that it is quite the contrary; that it is an attempt to steal the work of proprietary developers.
Don’t forget that you are against the whole principle of copyright altogether. Turning a 180 like this makes you lose credibility because now you are implying that copyright is a defensive tool to protect works rather than steal it. At the same time, you try to use it to force proprietary folk to open up their code. If keeping YOUR code free is your end goal you wouldn’t go as far as forcing them to open up theirs.

>Your “free software” is not *as* free as you like to imply, not as long as you hold the copyright and enforce it.
All that means is that corporations don't have the freedom to make non-free derivatives. So it increases freedom even if only one corporation is forced to release their software under the GPL. If a corporation is allowed to use your software and not release any derivatives you are being exploited. Proprietary software is not free, so you are decreasing the amount of software freedom by allowing people to exploit you.
>you must realize it does this by restricting the USERS freedom
There are laws against slavery. It ensures freedom for all by preventing the slave master from owning others. You just sound like some kind of Rothbard follower.
>What I am saying is you are being a hypocrite by collaterally betraying your own principles in your attempt use copyright to enforce your ideology.
I'm not betraying my principles, you don't even know my principles.
>I could argue that it is quite the contrary; that it is an attempt to steal the work of proprietary developers.
You could, but you'd just sound like a corporate shill.
>Don’t forget that you are against the whole principle of copyright altogether.
Again, you don't know what you're talking about. Nice strawman.
>At the same time, you try to use it to force proprietary folk to open up their code.
Only if they use my code. I refuse to let my code be used for the forces of evil. Do you like evil?
>If keeping YOUR code free is your end goal you wouldn’t go as far as forcing them to open up theirs
If they use my code they have to keep their derivatives open. That's all copyleft does. It ensures that my code is not used for nefarious, evil purposes, such as proprietary software.

>restricting the USERS freedom
The user can do whatever they want, the only ones restricted are creators of derivative works and only if they want to publish them.

I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you’re referring to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I’ve recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX.
Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is often called “Linux”, and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project. There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use.
Linux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine’s resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU with Linux added, or GNU/Linux. All the so-called “Linux” distributions are really distributions of GNU/Linux.

Emacs best gnu software

>All that means is that corporations don't have the freedom to make non-free derivatives
I am not concerned with whom it limits freedom, only that it limits freedom period. That makes it less free by definition. Tout that it’s for the better good all you want, but don’t tout that it’s more free; it’s not.

>If a corporation is allowed to use your software and not release any derivatives you are being exploited.
You (the creator) are being exploited. Yes. That’s what happens when you give freedom to your users. Some freedoms are mutually excludive. More freedom to the creator (to enforce their licenses) limits the freedoms of the users (to do what they want with the code, for example closing it). And more freedom to the users (freedom to close the source) limits the freedom of the creator (they can no see how their own code is being used). You like to conveniently forget the fact that corporations can be users, too. Being a creator and a user is not mutually exclusive.

>There are laws against slavery.

Yes. Some of those laws are the copyright laws you seem to be so vehemently against. Demanding the fruits (information) of my labor (private proprietary code) with nothing in return makes me a slave to you. Freedom is a two-way street. You don’t get to claim the moral high-ground against corporations for using copyright to protect their code when you use it to protect yours too. Using copyright laws to somehow negate their intended purpose (which is to protect content creators) is a perversion if the principles as well and you don’t even realize it.

>I'm not betraying my principles, you don't even know my principles.
Oh, but I do. I know that you are an advocate for “free” software and I see what you are trying to abolish and why. I don’t think you see the implications though and quite frankly I delight in the irony.

>Only if they use my code.
You mean in the same way that you use their code when you copy theirs? This is too funny.

>I am not concerned with whom it limits freedom, only that it limits freedom period. That makes it less free by definition. Tout that it’s for the better good all you want, but don’t tout that it’s more free; it’s not.
So laws against slavery make slave owners less free? I would say that making sure everyone remains free ensures more freedom.
>(freedom to close the source)
Call it what it is, the freedom to restrict the freedom of others.
> You like to conveniently forget the fact that corporations can be users, too. Being a creator and a user is not mutually exclusive
No, the people within the corporation can be users.
>Some of those laws are the copyright laws you seem to be so vehemently against.
If you mention this again I am not replying again. Open your eyes.
>Demanding the fruits (information) of my labor (private proprietary code) with nothing in return makes me a slave to you.
No it doesn't. Enslaving your software makes everyone else on earth a slave.
>Oh, but I do. I know that you are an advocate for “free” software and I see what you are trying to abolish and why. I don’t think you see the implications though and quite frankly I delight in the irony.
I think you just have a poor understanding based on your malformed idea of freedom. You have a Kabbalistic (American) idea of freedom.
>You mean in the same way that you use their code when you copy theirs? This is too funny.
Such as?

Attached: bsdcucks.jpg (1069x1081, 380K)

are you fucking new? red hat hijacked gnome and took it away from the GNU project long ago

You can't hijack free software.

>So laws against slavery make slave owners less free?
Of course it does. It makes it effectively illegal to be a slave owner at all. How is this a hard thing for you to grasp? Are the laws for the better good? Sure they are, we can both agree on that. But let’s not pretend we’re not limiting people’s freedom - we very much are.
>I would say that making sure everyone remains free ensures more freedom.
I could just as easily argue that it wouldn’t of the people being enslaved are criminals and other dangerous people who threaten far more people’s freedoms if kept free.

>Call it what it is, the freedom to restrict the freedom of others.
You like to dabble in rhetoric, but it doesn’t change the facts. This rhetoric could be used against your cause, too, because of the fundamental hypocratic nature of your ideoplogy.
>No, the people within the corporation can be users.
A corporation is merely a group of people. Read the dictionary.

>If you mention this again I am not replying again.
Proprietary laws protect me from you stealing my work in the same exact way it prevents me from stealing yours, you hypocrite.

>No it doesn't. Enslaving your software makes everyone else on earth a slave.
Yes it does. (You) enslaving my software makes everyone me a slave to you. And guess what, I will refuse to make software as a slave. Now you don’t get software to enslave to begin with, and everyone is enslaved by you because now they no longer even have the freedom to run my software because you assert that your entitlement to my work is more important than their freedom of choice of which freedoms are more important to them. Congratulations. You broke the free market and now created a communist russia where entrepreneurship is impossible. Now everyone is starving and lining up for bread because you deem that their freedom to see code is more important than their ability to eat food made by my proprietary formulas and software.

>Of course it does. It makes it effectively illegal to be a slave owner at all.
So you think the freedom to be a slave owner trumps the freedom to not be a slave?
>I could just as easily argue that it wouldn’t of the people being enslaved are criminals and other dangerous people who threaten far more people’s freedoms if kept free.
That is not a requirement of being a slave and is totally irrelevant.
>A corporation is merely a group of people. Read the dictionary.
You are fucking retarded. A corporation can hold many things collectively, like patents and copyrights, but there can not be a collective user.
>Proprietary laws protect me from you stealing my work in the same exact way it prevents me from stealing yours, you hypocrite.
You don't know what you're talking about.
>I will refuse to make software as a slave
Good, because non-free software is an abomination and should not exist.
>You broke the free market and now created a communist russia where entrepreneurship is impossible.
You act like taking away the power of corporations is a bad thing. Why are you such a cuck for them? All they do is exploit you and you worship them. You would even defend their right to own slaves if you had to.
>Now everyone is starving and lining up for bread because you deem that their freedom to see code is more important than their ability to eat food made by my proprietary formulas and software.
Better to die on your feet than live on your knees. Cuck.

sorry to break it to you, but GNOME is not free software anymore. it's "open source"

gnome.org

It is still licensed under the GPL.

so what? the whole thing is the demonstration of a corporation's ability to hijack a free software project by infiltrating it, then change the entire values of the project and dissociate it from the parent free software organization that started it in the first place.

open source is not free software, and the ideological and technical control exerted by a single company (red hat) on GNOME is against the spirit of freedom itself. the freedom of an open source project could be eroded at any time if the parent software company so wishes.

if stallman hadn't stepped in, you might have been seeing an "open source" corporate-controlled gcc, gdb and glibc too. that would be the total collapse of free software

We should fork it, then. Before it goes proprietary. "Open source" is controlled by American "libertarians" (economic liberals), and they are just corporate puppets.

>So you think the freedom to be a slave owner trumps the freedom to not be a slave?
Christ, I feel like Jordan Peterson in his debate against Cathy Newman. No. That is not what I said you insufferable twat. Read it again. Then repeat it. I dabble in facts, not in emotional shock or moral allegations. Your shaming tactics do not work on me.

>You are fucking retarded. A corporation can hold many things collectively, like patents and copyrights
Says the retard who doesn’t comprehend the fact that individuals can hold patents and copyrights. Being in a corporation doesn’t strip you of your humanity.

Good job on not replying to me, by the way. I see your cognitive dissonance is so strong that you just can’t help yourself. Well, either that or you just can’t come to terms with your own resolve. How could I expect you to, though? You can’t even come to terms with copyright law, constantly scorning it while simultaneously putting its protections on a pedestal in the form of copyleft.

>You act like taking away the power of corporations is a bad thing. Why are you such a cuck for them?

Because (1) I own two of them, (2) they enable entrepreneurship which would otherwise be impossible and (3) they are not limited to benefitting just the stockholders. Anyone can utilize their services and benefit as they see fit. And anyone can start them. I started both of mine.
Why are you such a failure? Your greed for my code only demonstrates your own selfishness in the guise of freedom when in fact it is your own interests you are looking out for. The only difference between you and I is that I’m honest enough to admit my moral decisions and implications and openly disclose them. Plus, I don’t go telling others what they should or shouldn’t do with their code. But you and your stallmanite groups just won’t shut up. There is a reason why your leader eats shit off his foot. It’s the same reason why he’s so vehemently against creator’s freedoms.

>I feel like Jordan Peterson in his debate against Cathy Newman.
You're a pseudo-intellectual, too?
>That is not what I said you insufferable twat. Read it again. Then repeat it. I dabble in facts, not in emotional shock or moral allegations.
The issue of free software is a moral one. If you support the freedom to own slaves then you support slavery, as one can not own slaves without slavery.
>Says the retard who doesn’t comprehend the fact that individuals can hold patents and copyrights. Being in a corporation doesn’t strip you of your humanity.
Says the retard who doesn't comprehend the fact that corporations can hold patents and copyrights collectively.
>Good job on not replying to me, by the way. I see your cognitive dissonance is so strong that you just can’t help yourself. Well, either that or you just can’t come to terms with your own resolve. How could I expect you to, though? You can’t even come to terms with copyright law, constantly scorning it while simultaneously putting its protections on a pedestal in the form of copyleft.
No, I think you're just attacking a strawman. Intellectually feeble people like you love to do that.
>Because (1) I own two of them, (2) they enable entrepreneurship which would otherwise be impossible and (3) they are not limited to benefitting just the stockholders. Anyone can utilize their services and benefit as they see fit. And anyone can start them. I started both of mine.
There's a reason we have to protect ourselves from you. You do more to hurt than help others. That is why we have to ensure that our software remains free even in your evil clutches.
>Plus, I don’t go telling others what they should or shouldn’t do with their code.
I don't force anyone to value their freedom, but I think they should. It's sad to see people acting as cucks for their corporate overlords.

You don't understand the GPL at all if you think it does anything but ensure the optimum freedom for software and the users.

as it stands, KDE ironically is the only desktop environment related organization which openly supports the goal of freedom instead of the opportunist open source. Xfce and LXDE/LXQt are silent on this. So I'm just gonna support those 3 instead of GNOME. already sent some patches to LXQt and I'm writing more extensions for it.

Do you know what Awesome and Openbox have to say on this as the most prominent GPL window managers?

>The issue of free software is a moral one. If you support the freedom to own slaves then you support slavery, as one can not own slaves without slavery.
I support enslaving people who are otherwise a danger to society. I also believe such people should be enslaved by those whom they’ve inconvenienced most. Now that we got that out of the way, you should defend your position why you think child rapists and serial killers should roam free.
>That is not a requirement of being a slave and is totally irrelevant.
Child rapists and serial killers lose their rights. Your argument is invalid.

>You are fucking retarded. A corporation can hold many things collectively, like patents and copyrights, but there can not be a collective user.
Seriously, go read the dictionary. Go to google, right now, and see why you’re a fool as you search the term “what is a corporation?”

>You don't know what you're talking about.
Then I’m going to assume you’re being deliberately ignorant. If you said this sincerely, then you weren’t really listening to anything I’ve said.

>No, I think you're just attacking a strawman.
See, this is you going
>hurr I didn’t say that! That was someone else!
You replied after I said it, twice.I’ll say it again: There are laws against slavery. Copyright laws are some (but not all) of those laws. They do it by protecting my intellectual property. Intellectual property, like real property, takes time and effort to create. They exist to ensure that you cannot steal my work in the same way that I cannot steal yours. If you see no point to them (or think they are intrinsically evil) then you’d be a hypocrite to utilize them.

>There's a reason we have to protect ourselves from you. You do more to hurt than help others. That is why we have to ensure that our software remains free even in your evil clutches.
See, this is the unearned moral high ground I’m talking about. You cannot be reasoned with.

>I support enslaving people who are otherwise a danger to society.
Like the corporations that use proprietary software? How do you define a danger to society?
>Now that we got that out of the way, you should defend your position why you think child rapists and serial killers should roam free.
You can't debate at all.
>Child rapists and serial killers lose their rights. Your argument is invalid.
Your argument is irrelevant. You cannot change definitions to meet your ideals.
>You replied after I said it, twice.I’ll say it again: There are laws against slavery. Copyright laws are some (but not all) of those laws. They do it by protecting my intellectual property. Intellectual property, like real property, takes time and effort to create. They exist to ensure that you cannot steal my work in the same way that I cannot steal yours. If you see no point to them (or think they are intrinsically evil) then you’d be a hypocrite to utilize them.
Yep, you just have an axe to grind at this point. You aren't even reading what I've written. You're being willfully ignorant for the sake of your argument.
>See, this is the unearned moral high ground I’m talking about. You cannot be reasoned with.
>d-don't call us evil, w-we just want to enslave you
Fuck off.

I’m not even going to give you the dignity of answering those other points. You’te not even worth the effort anymore...

>>d-don't call us evil, w-we just want to enslave you
Haha, and you call ME the straw man. Thanks for the laugh

>Fuck off.
Oh, don’t worry, I will. And unlike you, I can be trusted because I mean it when I say I won’t reply to you anymore ;)

Pic related. I can tell you’re a leftie so let this be a reminder to you when you watch your own ideology promote literal cancer. FYI, I work in biotech so I can safely say this is not an exaggeration

Attached: FAEB774D-16C6-48EB-A249-E5587293D111.jpg (736x618, 72K)

Capitalists are the real leftists.

aka friendly gnu thread /fgt/

BSD/MIT/Apache >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> GNU GPL

;)

Attached: stallman-ubuntu.jpg (640x480, 93K)

why does the GPL make you proprietary cocksuckers so insecure loool

No, this is specifically for the GNU project software and the ideals of the FSF. /fgt/ is not the same thing.
They're all corporate suits upset that they can't steal code and exploit it for wealth like Apple did.

I think by GNU you mean Linux. There is not such thing as GNU, only a loose collection of GNU tools that tend to run on Linux operating system

Also, you seem to be confused about "free software". There is no free software movement, only a Open Source software movement. Please correct your thread.

- Ubuntu Network install boot up with i3 in less that 10 seconds
- Ubuntu Mate boot up in 1min close to 2 mins

Explain this?? Why are so many services enabled in systemd at boot in DE version? both of them seems to use same kernel.. what the hell is going on here?

Is there a way for a wifi connection to connect faster after waking up a computer? On arch, it'll take about 5-8 seconds after opening the lid and for example opening a bookmark for it to load (after hitting F5 also). Can this be circumvented in any way?

Attached: 1514068151354.jpg (424x394, 17K)

Has anyone signed the paperwork needed to make non-trivial contributions to GNU software?
I want to go for it and work on GNU Emacs, but I'm worried I'd have to use my legal name, which hopefully will be changed soon.
Can I use a nickname or something like that? I don't want to be credited with my dead name.

actually you are right, BSD/MIT is best license ever.

60.2.2 esr.

Attached: 15387558957220.png (998x774, 60K)

Can you provide examples of such programs?

gnu.org/philosophy/pragmatic.html

Multiple examples are mentioned here.

Mac OS X, PlayStation 3 and 4.

A’ight, what’s the best emulator for Nintendo 64 games on Linux? I’ve tried using Virtual Box and WINE for Project 64 and have Hit stupid n road blocks every time. What is the best method? I just want to have some nostalgia when I’m alone when Christmas comes.

This is the GNU general. You want to ask this on the video games board, I think.

Mupen64.

I had tried to get Mupen64 working a while ago, I forget exactly what went wrong but long story short it didn’t work with Mint Cinnamon due to how the software manager worked.
I’m open to instruction and guidance though, because I’d like to think it was operator error and there’s still hope for that to work.

You mean package manager? GNU/Linux Mint uses apt doesn't it?