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) 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.