Zanzibart, forgive me...
Never forget. You are always just one email away from having your ideological prophet fuck bitches on your couch.
Timeline
Post
Remote status
Replies
49
@newt im sure some of the people on twkn would love for this to happen to them, nevermind the gnu jihadist
@kirby actually, @SuperDicq hosted 
once. But he passionately denies there were any hookers involved.
once. But he passionately denies there were any hookers involved.
@SuperDicq @kirby see? Still in denial.
@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.
@SuperDicq @newt @kirby one guy, who I will not name, got argued all the way into admitting his claims were untrue, then when asked to stop making them, still said no lol
@SuperDicq @newt @kirby virtue signalers love to say we don't support neurodivergent people enough but they are the first people to throw them under the bus because they think everyone is just faking it like them for attention when real neurodivergence manifests in socially inconvenient ways sometimes.
@sun @kirby @SuperDicq I would totally believe in 
complete nonchalance and lack of boundaries. Seems consistent with his email style.
complete nonchalance and lack of boundaries. Seems consistent with his email style.
@sun @kirby @SuperDicq @newt miguel de icaza worked for ms until 2022
@sun god i encountered that so many times. "just read the room" "how are you so autistic" "get some emotional intelligence" and similar bullshit
@SuperDicq @kirby @newt
@SuperDicq @kirby @newt
@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.
@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.
@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.
@SuperDicq @newt @sun @kirby @bonifartius
>He is still Chief GNUisance the leader of the GNU Project.
He was always more of a GNU/Nuisance for every GNU project he inserted himself into for sharing his opinions on how things should be done (universally bad takes).
>He is still Chief GNUisance the leader of the GNU Project.
He was always more of a GNU/Nuisance for every GNU project he inserted himself into for sharing his opinions on how things should be done (universally bad takes).
@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 @kirby @SuperDicq @sun @newt is someone going around with a gun, forcing people to use gpl licensed software?
@phnt @kirby @SuperDicq @bonifartius @sun GNU is about maintaining Emacs. That's basically all the project is good at.
@SuperDicq @newt @sun @kirby @bonifartius s/telling/forcing
Read the license, it is not a choice.
@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.
@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?
@SuperDicq @newt @sun @kirby @bonifartius So when a license has stronger freedom preservation and protection, it's suddenly no free. Alright.
@SuperDicq @bonifartius @kirby @newt @sun nonfree*
@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.
@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?
@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?
@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.
@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?
@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.
@SuperDicq @bonifartius @kirby @newt @sun Of course kernel unter Sybase also solves this, because you have to publish the changes no matter what.
@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.
@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.
@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.
@SuperDicq @newt @sun @kirby @bonifartius Still, point still stands. You have to either abolish copyright or use Sybase unless you accept being cucked by an already abused loophole that effectively nullifies what the GPL stands for and turns it into a BSD license. Unless you sell a product directly with the change or it's in a user facing public webapp.
@SuperDicq @newt @sun @kirby @bonifartius Nope, I'm taking about my previous point before you sidetracked the thread into a tangent why AGPL fixes this (it still doesn't, you just can't fully DRM the source).
@SuperDicq @bonifartius @kirby @newt @sun Also the web app can still depend on a private change to a GPL dependency. AGPL allows GPL dependencies and thus allows this unintended behavior.
@SuperDicq @newt @sun @kirby @bonifartius GPL is a free license. It just allows you to do this loophole.
@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.
@newt @kirby @SuperDicq @bonifartius @sun remember that the fsf had to be essentially dragged into the neo4j case after it threatened the legitimacy of the GPL. They didn't really want to get involved until then.
@newt @SuperDicq @bonifartius @kirby @sun Last time the GPL had actual teeth was with NeXt and the objc gcc frontend. Nothing major since then.
@SuperDicq @phnt @sun @kirby @bonifartius
>usually
citation needed. Because I'm well aware of dozens upon dozens of GPL violations. Hell, I own several devices running Linux with vendors refusing to disclose any code whatsoever.
What's worse, Linux Foundation member companies have been known to shit on GPL too. VMWare is especially notorious at this.
>usually
citation needed. Because I'm well aware of dozens upon dozens of GPL violations. Hell, I own several devices running Linux with vendors refusing to disclose any code whatsoever.
What's worse, Linux Foundation member companies have been known to shit on GPL too. VMWare is especially notorious at this.
@SuperDicq @newt @sun @kirby @bonifartius It doesn't care about Linux either.