Say what you will about the way RMS was removed, the fact that he is out of the picture is a good thing. For years...

>dismissing permissive open-source licenses instead of recognising that they partly do the job
never happened except in your imagination.

>I feel that there's little point to open source licenses
They aren't "open source" licenses, they are free software licenses.
gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html

>They're designed to give you as little control over your own software as possible
You either grant the users of your software their freedoms, or you deny them their freedom by retaining control. You can't have it both ways, as the Americans say: "Freedom ain't free".

this

It will mostly depend on who the next "big free software guy" will be I suppose

>never happened
gnu.org/licenses/bsd.html

Literally refers to the BSD license the same way nazis referred to "the jewish problem"

>the next [...] guy
>guy
Pay attention to current sentiments, user.

Attached: mfw1111.jpg (529x502, 47K)

Except there is no false dichotomy. The dichotomy is real, and it was created by nonfree developers, who are the terrorists in this scenario. I don't buy your slide for a second, shill.

>people who live their lives and work hard to develop free as in freedom software that respects your freedom
>people like Linus, Theo, ESR, etc.
>nonfree developers
You don't know what you're talking about.

I don't know who any of those people are. Why are you bringing up people unrelated to the topic of discussion?

It calmly discusses why the BSD license has certain technical weaknesses and how Stallman _collaborated_ with the FreeBSD community to produce a newer BSD license. It has nothing to do with insane fearmongering and paranoia the historical Nazis had. Quit being obtuse.

>I don't know who the pioneers and champions of free software are
Bait.

>It has nothing to do with insane fearmongering and paranoia the historical Nazis had
You know there are people posting in this thread that prove you wrong, see for example.
>not supporting GPL 3.0 means you're a terrorist

>He can't finish his argument without some appeal to a random authority

The premise for your argument is a logical fallacy, as already pointed out. Why the fuck should I waste my time on you when you can't even argue why the dilemma is true rather than a false dilemma?

>They aren't "open source" licenses, they are free software licenses.
Interesting, I see that my definition is much more strict than theirs.
>You either grant the users of your software their freedoms, or you deny them their freedom by retaining control. You can't have it both ways, as the Americans say: "Freedom ain't free".
100% freedom is impossible. Once you have more than one person then you don't have 100% freedom anymore. However, you should not have the freedom to infringe on other people's freedoms. This is why the GPL is important, it upholds this distinction.

>Interesting, I see that my definition is much more strict than theirs.
The only definition that matters is a license that respect the four freedoms, as defined by FSF and Stallman. Anything else is irrelevant.

>However, you should not have the freedom to infringe on other people's freedoms. This is why the GPL is important, it upholds this distinction.
Yes, but contrary to what you seem to believe, licensing software with the GPL means giving up your own control of it (as the developer/author) and granting the user the four freedoms.

I already told you, it's not false. The nonfree companies created it. You are divided because you don't want to admit that their EULAs are wrong and exclude literally everyone including any free software developer, BSD, MIT, GPL, whatever. It's always the same. I don't blame you for this, their whole thing is to get you into a position where it's hard to fight them.

>I already told you, it's not false.
Just saying that it isn't, isn't an argument.

>The nonfree companies created it
No, they didn't. Non-copyleft licenses is literally how free software started out, existing long before the so-called copyleft GPL was even a thing. You're being a history revisionist now. Using a free license is using a free license, regardless of its copyleft premise or not.

The salt in this page always amuses me.

They can't ridicule the BSD license itself without looking fucking stupid and they know it. Instead they criticize some tiny clause that was removed 20 years ago. Was the clause stupid? Yes. Does it make BSD literally the devil? Nope, but they are sure going to do their best to pretend that it does, even though it's been gone for two decades now.

The endless autistic pettiness and pedantry is why I don't like the FSF. Even on their recommended license page they call non-copyleft licenses "pushover" licenses.

I will not dispute any of that, and none of it has anything to do with my post.

>The endless autistic pettiness and pedantry is why I don't like the FSF
Exactly. With RMS gone, I hope that this might change. While he was a pioneer in his early days, he's been a divisive figure for far too long. I will even go as far as saying that he has held the movement back, with endless pedantry and quarrelling over semantics.

>an organization whose job includes reviewing legal texts should be less petty and pedantic
What exactly are you try to imply with this?

>I will not dispute any of that
You literally claimed that the non-copyleft licenses were invented by "bad" corporations.

Also
>Me: "you're a history revisionist"
>You: "I will not dispute any of that"
Well, thanks I guess?

Make that for

No, I claimed nonfree licenses were. You are intentionally avoiding discussing those licenses because this is what all proprietary shills pushing BSD licenses do.

I prematurely posted, sorry for that. The job of FSF is, and always was, to advocate free software, NOT to crack down and legally pursue people who they disagree with. If you believe that the FSF is primarily responsible for reviewing legal texts, then the organization has truly become the monster it set out to defeat in the first place, namely a corporation that uses lawyers and legal clauses to hinder the exchange of information and freedom of the hacker community.

Don't apologize, we're anons, nobody cares that you messed up a post.
>a corporation that uses lawyers and legal clauses to hinder the exchange of information and freedom of the hacker community.
This is an absurd line of thinking. The lawyers are there to defend freedom. Do you become an evil corporation just because you hired a lawyer to defend yourself when microsoft sues you?

This is a straw man argument, but I would expect no less from someone who's already demonstrated that he's willing to use informal fallacies such as false dilemmas to make a point. I never, ever even implied that proprietary or non-free licenses were good, or even acceptable to use. My point was, from the beginning, that there are many free as in freedom licenses (that respect the four freedoms of the user) albeit non-copyleft, and that Stallman's insistence on demonising these non-copyleft licences is divisive and toxic to the free software community. You outright said from the start that if you support these non-copyleft licenses (aka "open-source licenses") you are the enemy.

>The lawyers are there to defend freedom.
What an oxymoron, lawyers are there to interpret the law. Laws are, by definition, means of restricting you (arguably for the greater good).

>Do you become an evil corporation just because you hired a lawyer to defend yourself when microsoft sues you?
Microsoft has never sued the FSF, but rather the other way around: There are plenty of examples of the FSF suing corporations such as Cisco.

There is no strawman because I never cared what your "argument" was in the first place. My entire purpose here is to point out how you will avoid discussing the issue of nonfree licenses because in your mind they aren't a problem. Just like all proprietary shills pushing BSD licenses. Your support of these licenses is not what I criticize, it's your other related behavior which is.

Yes, because those companies violated the license which angered their customers.
Are you aware that you can sue for violations of the BSD license as well?

>My entire purpose here is to point out how you will avoid discussing the issue of nonfree licenses because in your mind they aren't a problem
I already said that they are, but this isn't what the thread is about. Are you admitting to trying to derail the thread?

>Just like all proprietary shills pushing BSD licenses.
This statement is inaccurate, which licenses exactly are you referring to when you say "BSD licenses"?

To quote Stallman himself:
>When you want to refer specifically to one of the BSD licenses, please always state which one: the “original BSD license” or the “Modified BSD license”.
gnu.org/licenses/bsd.html

Also, it's quite the contradiction for a proprietary shill to "push" one or more free licenses, don't you think?

>Are you admitting to trying to derail the thread?
It was never on-track.
>which licenses exactly are you referring to when you say "BSD licenses"?
Both. I don't care what stallman's opinion on the matter is.
>Also, it's quite the contradiction for a proprietary shill to "push" one or more free licenses, don't you think?
No. Your motivations for doing so are quite relevant.

>I will even go as far as saying that he has held the movement back, with endless pedantry and quarrelling over semantics.

I couldn't agree more. I know plenty of people who stopped working with the FSF because he was such an incorrigible cunt about everything. Several of them were women and they directy cited his comments about pedophilia as reasons. Retractions or not, quite a few people want nothing to do with someone who thinks it's acceptable to publicly discuss such views.

The funny thing is that many of these same people were quite happy submitting things to Linux and to deal with Linus, despite his reputation for being an asshole. The difference is that Linus isn't a pedantic cunt without good reason. If he flames you, you generally deserve it because you wrote shit code. He doesn't give two tosses about anything else most of the time, and people respect that. Stallman will go off the deep end over nothing, and he cannot tolerate alternative points of view.

I think copyleft licenses have a place, but I for one can't stand the unflinching obsession with forcing everything to use them. Sometimes they aren't appropriate, and it would behoove copyleft advocates like the FSF to acknowledge that.

This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. Even the FSF itself has been forced to acknowledge that BSD licensed software is free software. It's just not copyleft. They desperately want to restrict free software in such a way that only copyleft software is "free software", but they can't do so without distorting the definition of free software so much so that it is no longer actually free software.

>Yes, because those companies violated the license which angered their customers.
That's not why the FSF sued, they didn't sue because "the customers were angry", they sued because Cisco most likely had violated a licensing term (I say most likely, because they reached a settlement outside of court so it's not proven, but highly likely).

>Are you aware that you can sue for violations of the BSD license as well?
Of course you can, but again, it seems like you're saying that the FSF's sole purpose is to hunt down people who violates the GPL. That's not their job, at least not what they claim it is on their about page. Are you saying that the FSF has become a copyright troll on par with Novell? Because that's the very thing Stallman originally set out against.

I guess you are really proving my point that Stallman and the FSF has lost track of their mission, as I stated in OP.

Who do you think found out that they had violated the licensing terms?
>the FSF's sole purpose is to hunt down people who violates the GP
The FSF's job is to enforce the license of the code they hold the copyrights to just like it's Linus's responsibility to do that with his code, or it's your responsibility to do that with yours.

>toxic

enjoy trannies and SJWs taking over and enforcing their COC on everything under the sun and permanently banning anyone who disagrees with their authority and ideology.

It is so amazing that the propreitary software I use, uses free and open source software! I get all this extra freedom!

>This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. Even the FSF itself has been forced to acknowledge that BSD licensed software is free software. It's just not copyleft. They desperately want to restrict free software in such a way that only copyleft software is "free software", but they can't do so without distorting the definition of free software so much so that it is no longer actually free software.

The FSF does not want this and has never wanted this. The goal is to promote free software while discouraging the use and proliferation of nonfree software.

>It was never on-track.
If that's the case, then that's on you.

>Both. I don't care what stallman's opinion on the matter is.
You might not care, but other people do. One of the variants are a literal non-free license, the other is a free one. Neither is copyleft, which is what it seems you really are on about.

>No. Your motivations for doing so are quite relevant.
This is a straw man argument, you are attributing motivations to me that are false.

So they are a copyright troll, gotcha.

So you use public domain for all your code then?

>enforcing their COC on everything under the sun and permanently banning anyone who disagrees with their authority and ideology.
Replace COC with GPL, and you pretty much describe FSF as it is today.

Dude, you literally just said that their primary task is to hunt down license violations and protect their copyrights. This is what Hollywood lawyers do when they persecute people for torrenting a movie. This is not the beast they are supposed to have become. They've clearly lost their ways.

They really are exactly that, actually. They even recommend that you hand over the copyright to them when using the GPL, so they can protect it.

gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.html

It's really fucked up.

at least with the GPL you can't have your career ruined for using "problematic words" in your code

You mean with the GPL alone. Plenty of projects use both the GPL and a CoC.

and now you will have COC mandatory on all GPL software, which extends to people using the software as well.

can't wait for our tranny overlords to start blacklisting anyone and everyone left and right for being problematic. fuck this gay earth

>and now you will have COC mandatory on all GPL software, which extends to people using the software as well.
Good, the GPL was a repressive license from the start. Maybe now people will see it for what it really is.

>The FSF does not want this and has never wanted this.

If that were true they wouldn't constantly try to degrade non copyleft licenses. They wouldn't be so fucking salty about a BSD clause that hasn't been relevant in at least a decade. They wouldn't call non copyleft free software licenses pushover licenses.

They may claim not to want this, but the terminology they use for everything quite clearly shows that they wish they could abolish all licenses that weren't copyleft, even other free software licenses.

They do that so that they can prevent people from re-releasing software under more permissive non copyleft licenses like BSD or apache, or taking future versions closed source. They want you to hand over your rights so that they are in control. They claim to allow you to retain control, but everything is (or at least was) defaulted to you handing over all rights to them.

They aren't doing this out of generosity. It's all about restricting your options and binding you to copyleft licenses.

There is no "hunting down". It's generally up to the community to enforce these things and pay the lawyers because organizations like the FSF don't have enough money to file random lawsuits. The goal of all legal action they've taken is to either get the violator to provide code to the users, or to stop using the code altogether. Not to make money. There was an instance recently of a Linux developer attempting to copyright troll, but he was ejected from the community and heavily criticized. See the bottom of this page for some more info: netfilter.org/licensing.html

If you choose to public domain all your work, I respect that decision, but please understand that the position of the FSF is not and has never been to go around trying to profit from lawsuits, or prevent sharing, or whatever.

It'll be a stupid cunt who is nothing more than a corporate stooge

>It's a great license because those that wish to do evil with your software are legally unable to
Freedom 0) The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose.

Freedom ain't free, user. In order for your software to be truly free, I must be able to run for whatever purpose I want, including evil intentions.

>without making it and their changes public.
Only if they plan on redistributing it. I am free to use and modify GPL'd software on my own systems without publishing my changes. It's only when I "force" my software onto others' systems (aka require you to install it on your system), that I also need to publish the source code.

>They wouldn't be so fucking salty about a BSD clause that hasn't been relevant in at least a decade.
They aren't because you're referring to statements that were made a decade ago and haven't been made since.
>They wouldn't call non copyleft free software licenses pushover licenses.
They are pushover licenses. Have you noticed that these licenses are quite popular within nonfree software companies?

Free license only -> Allow permissive licenses ((You) are here) -> Proprietary licences

There can be no freedom of any kind anywhere with mob rule.

>Neither is copyleft
And neither are BSD or MIT licenses.

>you are attributing motivations to me that are false.
State your motivations then.

>The goal of all legal action they've taken is to either get the violator to provide code to the users, or to stop using the code altogether. Not to make money.
Then explain why the FSF v. Cisco case ended with an undisclosed financial contribution to the FSF rather than the release of source code.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Software_Foundation,_Inc._v._Cisco_Systems,_Inc.

>the position of the FSF is not and has never been to go around trying to profit from lawsuits,
See above.

Those that cancelled rms are hostis humani generis.

The "neither" in my post literally was talking about the two BSD licenses!! One of them is non-free, the other is free.

>State your motivations then.
I did in OP, you fucktard.

Okay, so you have no motivation other than to undermine the GPL and bolster proprietary developers in the process. Good, I'm glad we could clear that up.

>Okay, so you have no motivation other than to undermine the GPL
WTF? My literal words was that Stallman is the problem, and removing him will hopefully drive the FSF forward. How THE FUCK do you jump from that to "so you want to undermine the GPL and bolster proprietary developers in the process"?

You're fucking insane, dude.

Neck yourself Poettering no one thinks for a second that you're not going to destroy the FSF.

The number was not undisclosed, and it went to cover the legal fees. FYI, the FSF is a charity and their finances are all public. I don't have any secret insider information.
The sources in your link say that the source code was released.

>They want you to hand over your rights so that they are in control.
Exactly. Contrary to the original claim that the GPL allows the developer to retain control over his own work, it in fact is the opposite. By itself, that isn't necessarily a bad thing, the problem is when the FSF gets into the mix.

>Have you noticed that these licenses are quite popular within nonfree software companies?

And?

For profit endeavors tend to use proprietary code. They're naturally going to prefer licenses that don't require them to keep a separate database of how every piece of code in their product interacts. The GPL forces you to meticulously keep records of all of your code to ensure that there is no cross contamination and no corresponding license violations.

BSD is "it works, paste it in and move on."

One costs millions of dollars to validate. The other saves millions of dollars in development time and potentially lets you push a product to market faster, earning you more money. No shit companies are going to prefer BSD licensed code over GPL code. It's easier to work with.

You can bemoan the morality of this, but you're talking about industries measured in the trillions. They don't give a fuck about your choice of morality, and you have no power to force them to. If you did, you'd be fighting against the ideals of freedom you pretend to uphold.

>He's been an uncompromising loud mouth
There is nothing to compromise when it comes to privacy and freedom.

>The number was not undisclosed
The article says otherwise.
>On May 20, 2009 the parties announced a settlement that included Cisco appointing a director to ensure Linksys products comply with free-software licenses, and Cisco making an undisclosed financial contribution to the FSF.
>and Cisco making an undisclosed financial contribution to the FSF.

>it went to cover the legal fees
Source?

>The sources in your link say that the source code was released.
That's good at least. Otherwise it would have been kind of pointless IMO.

>There is nothing to compromise when it comes to privacy and freedom.
So why are you posting here when Google tracks you with captcha and cookies, and not doing like Stallman and wget'ing the page and mail it to yourself so you can read it offline at a later point? Or is there a compromise after all?

This is so true. He was borderline mentally ill in his approach to privacy. I understand principles are important, but so is adaptability and he was still stuck in the early 80's.

>muh systemd boogey man

Attached: boomer-beard.jpg (1024x768, 75K)

fsf.org/about/financial

That's not a source. How am I supposed to find the Cisco money from this?

I'm not going to hold your hand if you don't know how to read those statements. You need to be 18 to post here.

Nice deflection attempt, but you're not fooling anyone. The monetary contribution was undisclosed, and you know as well as I do that the FSF also disposes bank accounts in foreign countries (i.e. Japan, among others). You made the claim, the burden of proof is upon you.

Stallman has been the ultimate figurehead for free software and privacy
the fact that he is so loud, obnoxious and steadfast in his beliefs is something that can only be looked up to with admiration, the individual person can decide for themselves how far they want to compromise their freedom but they must do so knowing that they are compromising themselves and are failing to an extent
the second the FSF has a leader whom doesnt believe and fully commit to software freedom is the second the FSF loses all power and becomes a swiss cheese company, unable to convincingly advocate for freedom
you need to see a figure whom enacts the full commitment in order to be able to make your own journey to freedom
the FSF is lesser for not having him and we as a community are lesser for removing him

I don't have any "burden of proof" because I don't care if you remain stupid. I won't feed you information that you haven't earned.

>Stallman has been the ultimate figurehead for free software and privacy
I agree that this was useful in the early days, but the movement under his leadership has stagnated and devolved into autistic pedantry.

>the FSF is lesser for not having him and we as a community are lesser for removing him
The community is lesser for the way he was removed, but it has been long coming that he really needed to step aside. I will argue that since 2006, RMS has been a hindrance to the cause and actually only succeeded at splitting the free software movement into two camps that are constantly at each other throats, rather than being the leader of the unified movement it was in the early days.

One of the people the FSF is looking at for new leadership works for Microshit. I kid you not. Taking out RMS was part of the plan to destroy FSF, not save it.

They didn't want to ridicule it, the article is clearly about its technical flaws and how it can be improved and unified (and was improved in fact). In fact, they did ridicule it, but not in this article. Better quit seeing nonsense that's not there.

Anger and insults is not a substitute for proof. If you're going to make wild unsubstantiated claims and offer zero proof to back that up, fuck off to another board. You made the claim that the Cisco money was in fact disclosed, despite sources literally saying that it was undisclosed.

>the fact that he is so loud, obnoxious and steadfast in his beliefs is something that can only be looked up to with admiration

>Pedophile apologist loudly refuses to recant beliefs for over a decade
>worthy of admiration

Attached: 1468741125071.jpg (552x528, 76K)

You're a faggot. My proof can be found here, if you know how to search: google.com

>16 year old
>pedophile
American education everyone.

> I will argue that since 2006, RMS has been a hindrance to the cause and actually only succeeded at splitting the free software movement into two camps that are constantly at each other throats, rather than being the leader of the unified movement it was in the early days.

When did Theo and RMS start fighting over Stallman's autistic pedantic tendencies when it came to free software, because that was the point he became a hindrance to the free software movement. Had Stallman acted like an adult, talked through it over with Theo and come to some sort of compromise that both could accept for the most part, the free software movement would be way stronger and more united today and might even have some more influence in the legal and political sense.

I gave you the proof which is a primary source directly from their accountant published on their website. Legally, as a charity, they are required to disclose finances. If you can't read these financial statements and verify my claims then I could make up any number and you would believe it, so there is literally no reason for me to say anything at all.

By the way, your "source" is a wikipedia page, I'm not even going to bother arguing with you if you think this qualifies. I don't help people who just regurgitate "facts" given to them by random internet articles.

It's not only Theo, the fallout with ESR was completely unnecessary and is the root cause for the rift in the community that became the open source initiative vs FSF.

>In todays news, microsoft CEO has become the new head of the FSF. He is quoted as saying "Now real change can begin" and that "freedom is too costly, consumers don't want it"

ESR is mentally ill. Have you looked at his personal site?

Yes, when you are old enough to be her fucking grandfather (let alone father) and normal people give you weird looks because a 60 something year old man is being TOO affectionate to a girl that could be his grandaughter, it's fucking pedophilia. If she were even 20 or 20-something, it would be creepy but most people would leave it at that. Not to mention teenagers are fucking stupid and impressionable, which gives pedophiles ample room to groom them. Like, only people in third world shitholes think what you're saying is normal.