Zanzibart, forgive me...
@SuperDicq @kirby see? Still in denial.
Timeline
Post
Remote status
Context
50@newt@stereophonic.space @kirby@fsebugoutzone.org Yes, no hookers of course. He was with Dora Scilipoti.
I also don't really believe the story OP is talking about either. Are there any sources to back this up? That behavior seems very unlike Stallman to me.
@SuperDicq @newt @kirby multiple people that have attacked rms exposed that they consider it moral to lie about him to bring him down. well, now I don't believe any of them anymore.
@sun @kirby @SuperDicq @newt miguel de icaza worked for ms until 2022
@bonifartius@noauthority.social @sun@shitposter.world @kirby@fsebugoutzone.org @newt@stereophonic.space Oh right it's that Miguel de Icaza. I knew I recognized the name from somewhere.
Whatever he says he is definitely not someone who is to be trusted.
@bonifartius@noauthority.social @sun@shitposter.world @kirby@fsebugoutzone.org @newt@stereophonic.space I know Miguel is "the founder" of a bunch of notable free software projects.
But I also don't have very high opinion of the "founder" type people who only are here to "found" projects and then immediately leave to go "found" something and instead of actually sticking with the thing and growing it to fulfillment.
@SuperDicq @sun @kirby @bonifartius huh? What would be "fulfilment" in case of say GNOME? He spent a good three years working on it, before switching to Xamarin/mono/other C# stuff for over two decades before leaving it in 2022. Seems quite fulfilling here.
@newt@stereophonic.space @sun@shitposter.world @kirby@fsebugoutzone.org @bonifartius@noauthority.social Have you used GNOME 1.0?
@newt@stereophonic.space @sun@shitposter.world @kirby@fsebugoutzone.org @bonifartius@noauthority.social I mean I get it though. Yes he made sure it was completed to version 1.0 which can count as "fulfillment", but it is very different from people like Stallman who dedicate their entire life to the movement instead of just a few years and then move on to something else.
@SuperDicq @sun @kirby @bonifartius
>Have you used GNOME 1.0?
Only briefly a few years ago, as a historic curiosity. Seemed consistent with other UIs of the time, like KDE 1 or Windows 98/2000. Sorry, I don't buy the idea that one must maintain his software into eternity. There's more fun to be had in this world.
Then again, I'm not sure what
has done other than writing emails, giving speeches, and maintaining Emacs. He certainly hasn't succeeded in giving birth to any kind of GNU OS or a free (as in speech) computer of any kind.
>Have you used GNOME 1.0?
Only briefly a few years ago, as a historic curiosity. Seemed consistent with other UIs of the time, like KDE 1 or Windows 98/2000. Sorry, I don't buy the idea that one must maintain his software into eternity. There's more fun to be had in this world.
Then again, I'm not sure what
has done other than writing emails, giving speeches, and maintaining Emacs. He certainly hasn't succeeded in giving birth to any kind of GNU OS or a free (as in speech) computer of any kind.
@newt @kirby @SuperDicq @sun he wrote gcc
@bonifartius @kirby @SuperDicq @sun and then abandoned it in favour of other projects, just like what SuperDicq accuses de Icaza of.
@newt@stereophonic.space @bonifartius@noauthority.social @kirby@fsebugoutzone.org @sun@shitposter.world Just because Stallman is no longer a programmer doesn't mean he has abandoned it. He is still Chief GNUisance the leader of the GNU Project.
Abandoning it like Miguel would mean he now would go around suggesting people should use MSVC instead.
@SuperDicq @sun @kirby @bonifartius he mostly abandoned GCC by the early to mid 90s. Also, he did enough damage to the project that a lot of people switched to LLVM.
@newt@stereophonic.space @sun@shitposter.world @kirby@fsebugoutzone.org @bonifartius@noauthority.social People switched to LLVM because they are proprietary software lackeys that don't want to abide by copyleft and give other people the same freedom they have.
@SuperDicq @newt @sun @kirby @bonifartius
give other people the same freedom they have.
GNU isn't about freedom, it's about forcing restrictions on everybody else.
@phnt@fluffytail.org @newt@stereophonic.space @sun@shitposter.world @kirby@fsebugoutzone.org @bonifartius@noauthority.social Telling others to pass on the same freedoms that they have is not a restriction, silly.
@SuperDicq @newt @sun @kirby @bonifartius s/telling/forcing
Read the license, it is not a choice.
@phnt@fluffytail.org @newt@stereophonic.space @sun@shitposter.world @kirby@fsebugoutzone.org @bonifartius@noauthority.social You shouldn't be allowed to take other people's freedom away. For reasons things like murder are illegal.
@SuperDicq @newt @sun @kirby @bonifartius Correct, I should have freedom to use your software however I want and do whatever I want with it. But GPL is not compatible with that, owner of the copyright is a dictator that forces restrictions on how the software is used, modified and distributed.
@phnt@fluffytail.org @newt@stereophonic.space @sun@shitposter.world @kirby@fsebugoutzone.org @bonifartius@noauthority.social Copyleft is not a restriction, it is freedom preservation.
If you were already doing the right in the first place (making free software), the GPL doesn't do anything.
@SuperDicq @newt @sun @kirby @bonifartius mental gymnastics
@SuperDicq @bonifartius @kirby @newt @sun Let's take your thinking exactly as you say. License everything under OpenWatcom/Sybase. If you are writing free software already, you intend to share it with the public right? Isn't that what everybody should be doing, sharing their code?
@phnt@fluffytail.org @bonifartius@noauthority.social @kirby@fsebugoutzone.org @newt@stereophonic.space @sun@shitposter.world No, of course not, the Sybase Open Watcom Public License is a nonfree license. It has actual restrictions unlike the GPLv3 where it for example requires you make all your changes public.
@SuperDicq @newt @sun @kirby @bonifartius So when a license has stronger freedom preservation and protection, it's suddenly no free. Alright.
@phnt@fluffytail.org @newt@stereophonic.space @sun@shitposter.world @kirby@fsebugoutzone.org @bonifartius@noauthority.social Requirimng people to publish their private modifications has nothing to do with freedom preservation.
@SuperDicq @newt @sun @kirby @bonifartius Yes it does. I can modify GPL code however I want, but as long as I keep it internal, I don't have to share it with anyone. There are companies I know that have private kernel patches that will never be shared upstream and they are internal. Perfectly legitimate thing to do according to GPL. How is that freedom respecting and inline with the GPL spirit. It's simple, it isn't.
@phnt@fluffytail.org @newt@stereophonic.space @sun@shitposter.world @kirby@fsebugoutzone.org @bonifartius@noauthority.social It is completely freedom respecting to keep private changes to yourself. You have a right to privacy. You are not denying anyone freedom by keeping private things private.
@SuperDicq @newt @sun @kirby @bonifartius So it is freedom respecting to keep private changes to yourself, but it is not freedom respecting to keep changes for your products you sell to yourself. Whose freedom are you breaking then?
@phnt@fluffytail.org @newt@stereophonic.space @sun@shitposter.world @kirby@fsebugoutzone.org @bonifartius@noauthority.social If you are are selling software and you are not willing to give them the source code, you are denying your users the freedom to modify it.
@SuperDicq @newt @sun @kirby @bonifartius And you are not denying your users the freedom to modify it, when you are using a private change that makes you higher profits that isn't the product you are selling itself? The product only benefits from those changes and aren't in the product itself. Aren't you denying the freedom to modify and include that change to everyone upstream?
@phnt@fluffytail.org @newt@stereophonic.space @sun@shitposter.world @kirby@fsebugoutzone.org @bonifartius@noauthority.social I don't even understand what you're trying to say here.
On private code you are not denying your users anything because there are no users except yourself.
@SuperDicq @newt @sun @kirby @bonifartius I've described the typical SaaS scenario. Kernel has a private change that does not need to be public, but the product, a webapp, uses that change for higher profits, in other words, you still selling a product, you've just hidden the private change one layer down. Effectively doing the exact thing that GPL enthusiasts laugh at BSD/MIT for enabling.
@phnt@fluffytail.org @newt@stereophonic.space @sun@shitposter.world @kirby@fsebugoutzone.org @bonifartius@noauthority.social SaaSS is indeed proprietary. To solve this issue that's what we have AGPLv3 license for.
@SuperDicq @newt @sun @kirby @bonifartius Even the AGPL does not solve that. The webapp can be free software under AGPL using a feature nobody else has access to. And licensing the kernel under AGPL would be a licensing disaster.
@SuperDicq @bonifartius @kirby @newt @sun The only way to solve the issue is to use Sybase or abolish copyright and make exfiltrating private source code legal.
Or how will you make the kernel comply with the requirement to give you a pointer to it's source. Reserve a port that when you hit with Telnet, prints you the links for every public device running Linux on the planet?
@phnt@fluffytail.org @bonifartius@noauthority.social @kirby@fsebugoutzone.org @newt@stereophonic.space @sun@shitposter.world No, Sybase is a deeply flawed license philosophically. It doesn't solve software freedom issues.
If I interact with your webapp I don't need the source code of the kernel that you use. I am not directly interacting with your kernel. That is acceptable.
@SuperDicq @newt @sun @kirby @bonifartius Depends on the interpretation. You are interacting with a public machine running a kernel hypothetically licensed under AGPL. You are not only interacting with a web app, but also with the server running that web app with TCP/IP.
@phnt@fluffytail.org @newt@stereophonic.space @sun@shitposter.world @kirby@fsebugoutzone.org @bonifartius@noauthority.social What is the issue here? If I want to run a local copy of the webapp, I can still do that without your custom kernel.
@SuperDicq @newt @sun @kirby @bonifartius The webapp doesn't have to run without a modified kernel. Or any dependency it needs for that matter. Even a modified PHP would fly if PHP was GPL licensed.
@phnt@fluffytail.org @newt@stereophonic.space @sun@shitposter.world @kirby@fsebugoutzone.org @bonifartius@noauthority.social If your AGPL licensed program has proprietary dependencies, it is not free software.
@SuperDicq @newt @sun @kirby @bonifartius Doesn't have to be proprietary. If you wanna be really evil, it can be a GPL interpreter with a custom private encryption scheme that decrypts the AGPLed webapp on the fly. Effectively exactly what is Denuvo and VMProtect, but with a GPL dependency whose source does not have to be published and a AGPL webapp.
@SuperDicq @bonifartius @kirby @newt @sun You can release the encrypted/obfuscated source code under AGPL and users are left in the dark.
@phnt@fluffytail.org @bonifartius@noauthority.social @kirby@fsebugoutzone.org @newt@stereophonic.space @sun@shitposter.world If you're releasing the source code in obfuscated or encrypted form only you're not abiding by the AGPL correctly.
@SuperDicq @newt @sun @kirby @bonifartius I think you could get away with it rather easily. The AGPL is mostly just GPL with a network clause that basically says, if it is available over the network, you have to make the source public. GPL does not talk about obfuscated or encrypted source code, it only talks about source code and binary form. And obfuscated code that demangles on the fly isn't a binary form.
At worst, the license does not apply and you don't have to release it if you own the copyright for everything.
@phnt@fluffytail.org @newt@stereophonic.space @sun@shitposter.world @kirby@fsebugoutzone.org @bonifartius@noauthority.social
GPL does not talk about obfuscated or encrypted source code, it only talks about source code and binary form.No, you are mistaken. It talks about "Corresponding Source" which is defined as the "the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it".
An obfuscated or encrypted source code is obviously not "the preferred form". No court is going is going to agree with is.
@SuperDicq @phnt @sun @kirby @bonifartius
>No court is going is going to agree with is.
Here's the funny thing tho. How many times have courts upheld GPL over the years? A dozen or so?
How much money was spent on those litigations? Hundreds of thousands if not millions per case? How much time does it take on average to enforce GPL in court? Last I checked, it was from several years to upwards of a decade.
GPL is wishful thinking at best.
>No court is going is going to agree with is.
Here's the funny thing tho. How many times have courts upheld GPL over the years? A dozen or so?
How much money was spent on those litigations? Hundreds of thousands if not millions per case? How much time does it take on average to enforce GPL in court? Last I checked, it was from several years to upwards of a decade.
GPL is wishful thinking at best.
๐ฟ 
@newt @phnt @kirby @SuperDicq @bonifartius @sun
If the GPL wasn't a threat to proprietary entities they wouldn't invest in permissive licensing and re write libraries in another license etc.. , they wouldn't subvert communities with inclusivity and personality slander, they wouldn't lobby shitting out the worst possible laws in existence etc...
GPL works, otherwise these "violations" wouldn't actually be just legal loopholes and state interpretation.
We already know where the permissive proprietary path leads us, if you want to go that path be my guest I'll even suggest you to accelerate outcome and dig your own grave.
If the GPL wasn't a threat to proprietary entities they wouldn't invest in permissive licensing and re write libraries in another license etc.. , they wouldn't subvert communities with inclusivity and personality slander, they wouldn't lobby shitting out the worst possible laws in existence etc...
GPL works, otherwise these "violations" wouldn't actually be just legal loopholes and state interpretation.
We already know where the permissive proprietary path leads us, if you want to go that path be my guest I'll even suggest you to accelerate outcome and dig your own grave.
@mangeurdenuage @kirby @SuperDicq @bonifartius @sun @newt
We already know where the permissive proprietary path leads us,
Yes, I know where the path leads. To less broken GNU software, because they finally will have competition. So far the less GNU on my systems, the less broken they are. Mysterious, I know.
@phnt @kirby @SuperDicq @bonifartius @sun @newt
>will have competition
Lol. Competition between black boxes, what a silly concept, as if the 70s/80s didn't experience that already.
Be ready to pay for each individual compiler option fuck boy
>the less broken it is. Mysterious,
Funnily my experience is the reverse, the less proprietary software I have the less issues I have.
>will have competition
Lol. Competition between black boxes, what a silly concept, as if the 70s/80s didn't experience that already.
Be ready to pay for each individual compiler option fuck boy
>the less broken it is. Mysterious,
Funnily my experience is the reverse, the less proprietary software I have the less issues I have.
Replies
10@mangeurdenuage @kirby @SuperDicq @bonifartius @sun @newt
Lol. Competition between black boxes, what a silly concept, as if the 70s/80s didn't experience that already. Be ready to pay for each individual compiler option fuck boy
You have no idea how bad GCC would be today if llvm and clang didn't exist.
@mangeurdenuage @SuperDicq @bonifartius @kirby @newt @sun Also for extra fun, look who maintains most of your GNU projects. It's IBM via Red Hat as a proxy.
@phnt @kirby @SuperDicq @bonifartius @mangeurdenuage @sun GCC is still bad tho. It's one of the few compilers where you need a completely separate build for cross-compiling. If you wanna build a golang program for another architecture, you can just run GOARCH=arm GOOS=linux go build. Similarly, with clang: clang --target=aarch64-pc-linux. Meanwhile, GCC can't do this.
Basically, the main reason why people avoid cross-compiling and instead run native builds either on hardware or in VMs is because GNU tooling horribly sucks.
@mangeurdenuage @phnt @kirby @SuperDicq @bonifartius @sun the testament to how much GNU sucks as a project and how huge of a failure as a leader was
was
@newt@stereophonic.space @mangeurdenuage@shitposter.world @phnt@fluffytail.org @kirby@fsebugoutzone.org @bonifartius@noauthority.social @sun@shitposter.world This "failure of a leader" achieved a thousand times more than you ever will.
@SuperDicq @phnt @mangeurdenuage @sun @kirby @bonifartius true. Becoming an internet lolcow of this magnitude is clearly outside of my reach.
@newt @kirby @SuperDicq @bonifartius @mangeurdenuage @sun Which is quite ironic when GNU/Autohell isn't that bad at setting up cross-compiling. If you already have the toolchain that is.
Another thing that GCC sucks at real bad along with GNU/Autohell is setting up static builds. I love passing --disable-shared/--enable-static and still have a binary that dynamically links to the libc. Completely disregarded the assignment and glibc not being statically linkable is not an excuse for this behavior.
@phnt @kirby @SuperDicq @bonifartius @mangeurdenuage @sun oh man..
Autohell is another reason to hate GNU and its leadership. Imagine the world where Autohell had been killed in the 90s and replaced with something like Meson, instead of having it dragged kicking and screaming well into the 2010s. The sheer amount of time that people have collectively spent on debugging m4 scripts is enormous. If I was
level paranoid, I'd claim that Autohell was an intentional sabotage against open source ecosystems.
Autohell is another reason to hate GNU and its leadership. Imagine the world where Autohell had been killed in the 90s and replaced with something like Meson, instead of having it dragged kicking and screaming well into the 2010s. The sheer amount of time that people have collectively spent on debugging m4 scripts is enormous. If I was
level paranoid, I'd claim that Autohell was an intentional sabotage against open source ecosystems.
@phnt @kirby @SuperDicq @bonifartius @sun @newt
Imagine if we didn't have water, none of these wouldn't exist.
Imagine if we didn't have water, none of these wouldn't exist.