SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Free software advocates seek removal of Richard Stallman and entire FSF board:
Richard Stallman's return to the Free Software Foundation's board of directors has drawn condemnation from many people in the free software community. An open letter signed by hundreds of people today called for Stallman to be removed again and for the FSF's entire board to resign.
The open letter said:
Richard M. Stallman, frequently known as RMS, has been a dangerous force in the free software community for a long time. He has shown himself to be misogynist, ableist, and transphobic, among other serious accusations of impropriety. These sorts of beliefs have no place in the free software, digital rights, and tech communities. With his recent reinstatement to the Board of Directors of the Free Software Foundation, we call for the entire Board of the FSF to step down and for RMS to be removed from all leadership positions.
Previously:
Richard Stallman Rejoins Free Software Foundation Board of Directors
Richard M. Stallman Resigns
Richard Stallman Deserved to be Fired, Says Fired GNU Hurd Maintainer
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 26 2021, @03:37AM (10 children)
Why is the FSF so closely aligned with the GPL instead of with ALL open source licenses? Because of Stallman. And giving undue consideration to the GPL shows they are biased, same as their campaign to open source Windows, knowing ahead of time that it’s legally impossible because of 3rd party code licensed to Microsoft, shows they really don’t give a shit about copyright law.
It’s a chummy club that, like Stallman, needs to go away. Anyone supporting them is a useful idiot.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Arik on Friday March 26 2021, @05:25AM (6 children)
Because the GPL was specifically written, at considerable expense, by some of the best lawyers available, directly in return for payment from the Foundation; specifically to make sure that it was the most pro-freedom license that our legal system would permit.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 27 2021, @12:01AM (5 children)
Anyway, it’s irrelevant. Stallman is now toast, and the FSF has ended up as collateral damage. Not too smart for a bunch of pseudo intellectual fools who just self-destructed without any outside pressure.
https://www.theregister.com/2021/03/26/redhat_fsf_funding_richard_stallman/ [theregister.com]
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Saturday March 27 2021, @12:21AM (4 children)
That depends on *whose* freedom it is intended to preserve:
BSD license is to preserve the developer's freedom. ("Anybody can take this code base and start developing it without questions, and even relicense it if they want.")
GPL license is to preserve the user's freedom. ("You can take this and use it yourself, and nobody is allowed to change the license to something more restrictive and sue you for using it.")
There is some assumption in the GPL that the end user may also be a programmer, so they're allowed to modify it for their own purposes, but that's more of a side effect of the intended goal.
Unless by "BSD is pro-freedom; GPL isn't" you mean "BSD makes it easier for companies to steal your work and sell it", which is true.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 1) by ThatIrritatingGuy on Saturday March 27 2021, @11:55AM (2 children)
(following is nitpicking on details while agreeing with your post as a whole)
I always thought that GPL is preserving the freedom of software, not any person. Note that GPL does not guarantee that a user will be able to take such a program. Developer is obligated to give the same rights along with source to anyone they distribute the software to, but they are not compelled to distribute the software to anyone to begin with.
If you were to take a GPL program and modify it, you have the right to use it as you see fit. If you were to give the compiled program (modified or not) to a third party, you are obligated to provide them with the same license and source code. While having the same rights as you, this third party is not obligated to provide you with any derivative work they did based on the program. Original program developer cannot demand the changed versions to be shared by either you, the third party or anyone else down the line.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Saturday March 27 2021, @03:40PM (1 child)
You can use your modified version in-house but you aren't required to give anybody the code if you don't distribute that version, yes.
I'm not quite sure how Party A finds out about Party B's modified version if Party B never distributes it, though...
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 1) by ThatIrritatingGuy on Monday March 29 2021, @08:56PM
Party A could hear about it from Party C that got a copy from Party B. Of course in this case Party C can give it to Party A and Party B can do nothing to stop that from happening.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Monday March 29 2021, @11:47PM
That's the only part I disagree with. That wasn't a side-effect, but an integral part of the better future we imagined computers could be harnessed to produce. Of course every user would know how to program. What's the point in having a computer if you can't program it? Just to run some opaque blob from an unknown source?
Of course not everyone was expected to program with the same facility, but we naturally expected that when everyone used computers it would mean that everyone had a basic understanding of what they were and how to use them. That's not *all* that source rights were about but that was certainly one of the motivations. We could see even then that the greedy bean counters would absolutely reduce everyone to serfdom through ignorance if allowed to do so.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 1) by Anti-aristarchus on Friday March 26 2021, @08:48PM
You say that like it is a bad thing! I haven't given a shit about copyright law for quite some time.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 26 2021, @10:35PM (1 child)
"Why is the FSF so closely aligned with the GPL instead of with ALL open source licenses? Because of Stallman."
yes, because he's not a basic bitch like you. he created copyleft for a fucking reason, you dumb windows/mac-using whore.
"And giving undue consideration to the GPL shows they are biased, same as their campaign to open source Windows"
of course they're biased, you fucking retard.
"knowing ahead of time that it’s legally impossible because of 3rd party code licensed to Microsoft"
oh cry me a river. anything that hurts MS is good for the world. they're lucky people don't attack the headquarters every day.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 27 2021, @12:06AM