Shaul , 10 months ago

It sounds like you have an idol worship for GNU with zero experience of UNIX/BSD culture in that they only care about code that works and not anybody’s opinion.

That is where OpenBSD developerd sticks so hard to BSD and ISC licenses with a preference for ISC license because they don’t care what other people do, they develop for themselves, and if people don’t like the way it functons, don’t use it, problem solved.

The problem with GNU/FSF people is they are excessively wrapper in what other people do through politicing and not enough time fixing their own code. Once GNU people develops an operating system in similar fashion to how each BSD are each their own complete operating system, then they can give their opinions. Until then, they should go away, stop with the software politics, and care a lot more about their own code.

AureumTempus OP , 10 months ago (edited 10 months ago)

[Thread, post or comment was deleted by the author]

Shaul , 10 months ago

If you actively try to avoid software that is licensed under BSD or ISC, only Gnu’s Marxist license, then that means you won’t use OpenSSH or the security tools ported over from OpenBSD into both Linux and Android and will not use an operating system or programs that have been compiled with LLVM/Clang.

I prioritize system security, and for that I only care about open source and reject free/libre software due to all of its built-in political implications. But also defend the right for people to make proprietary software. I won’t use it, but defend people’s right to make it.

People must give up how they want the world to operate and deal with what is. For example, FSF is wholly incompatible with BSD and the 2 distinct cultures and views can never work together. They are both open source, but that’s where the commonality ends.

il3fm9 , 10 months ago

If you actively try to avoid software that is licensed under BSD or ISC, only Gnu’s Marxist license, then that means you won’t use OpenSSH or the security tools ported over from OpenBSD into both Linux and Android and will not use an operating system or programs that have been compiled with LLVM/Clang.

OP did say “wherever possible”, not “without any compromises”; I agree that it would be very challenging to try and live on purely GPL software, but it just seems like they’re looking for potential alternatives. I think it’s admirable given their stance on libre software.

Gnu’s Marxist license

This seems like such a blanket statement designed to put down copyleft advocates “because communism”. Do you think the right to repair movement - which advocates for control over one’s hardware (in contrast to software) - is also Marxist? I consider these two movements as practically adjacent to one another.

I prioritize system security, and for that I only care about open source and reject free/libre software due to all of its built-in political implications. But also defend the right for people to make proprietary software. I won’t use it, but defend people’s right to make it.

I ask the following more out of curiousity than argumentatively, because I still don’t quite understand this position: do you still encourage people to use libre software in this case? If libre software is better than proprietary software, why shouldn’t we strive for a world where all software is libre? Is there any reason for software to not respect its users’ freedoms? I’m not saying that we should all be hardcore GPL-only-or-die enthusiasts, either; rather that it seems reasonable to aim for a life free of proprietary software, one step at a time. In my opinion, copyleft can accomplish that better than permissive licenses would.

Shaul , 10 months ago

Thevright to repair thing is wholly distnct from software. Right to reapir is for a physical hardware product. People bought something they can touch, they have full rights to repair it, otherwise people are only paying to use it but never fully own it out right.

Libre software is not better than proprietary software. I only care about open source software for the sake of security so I can do whatever I want with the code, I reject libre software like GPLv3 and stick to open source.

If you know the difference between a cracker and a hacker, I always got love for hackers. It’s the crackers that cause so much misery. I’m a big fan if hackathons, as long as the discussions center around hacking and not get into personal digs.

I’ve noticed a trend that it seems to be end users that don’t have a clue about computer science and software engineering from a programming perspective that got more stuck on licenses than the actual developers and hackers. I even believe there are wonderful devs and engineers at Microsoft, nVidia, and Google, who wod be happy to give away their code if there wasn’t the stockholder reigning supreme over corporate management.

Until you learn code correctness, you can’t understand the areas where Linux has horrible designing or programming. There’s a reason why the top talent at Def Con completely gave up on trying to get into a default OpenBSD installation.

fubo , 10 months ago (edited 10 months ago)

GNU is not Marxist. Like, flatly, not at all. To say so is just a mistake or a lie.

GPL says literally nothing at all about workers, employment, capital, or revolution. It makes no requirements addressing the rights of workers who develop software on behalf of capitalist corporations. GNU does not advocate for workers owning the means of production, or against capitalist corporations alienating those workers from the product of their labor.

The GPL doesn’t say “If you employ workers to work on this code, those workers rather than their employer must own the product of their labor.”

Rather, it is entirely focused on granting rights to software purchasers and users.

This makes sense if you know movement history. The inspiration for the FSF and GNU originated with RMS’s experience as a customer denied access to improve printer software that his MIT lab bought and used.

It’s not Marxist. It’s explicitly consumerist.

Shaul , 10 months ago

You used the philosophy and objective of Marxism to say that the GPL is not Marxist.

fubo , 10 months ago

That’s how one demonstrates that two views are not in accord with one another, yes. If it were Marxist, then it would address Marxist concerns. It does not; this is strong evidence that it’s not Marxist.

Shaul , 10 months ago

The Marxist philosophy is not solely and strictly pertaining to workers. There is a Marxist culture, living with a Marxist mindset or mentality, and living with a Marxist view of the world or trying to get the world to fall into a Marxist view and setting up society in a Marxist way.

fubo , 10 months ago

Sounds like conspiracy bullshit to me.