Egregoros

Never forget. You are always just one email away from having your ideological prophet fuck bitches on your couch.

@newt@stereophonic.space @kirby@fsebugoutzone.org I didn't host him myself, but I did stay at the same place where rms and a bunch of other GNU people were staying. I also drove rms around Switzerland for a few hours.

@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.

@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 From the man himself: https://www.osnews.com/story/22225/rms-de-icaza-traitor-to-free-software-community/

@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.

@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.

@newt @kirby @SuperDicq @sun he wrote gcc

@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.

@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.