> fossoids
I deliberately joined a political network directly connected to free software of which all major servers and clients are free software and the dominant server for the majority of its existence was called gnu social, and now I am subjected to free software discourse, how could this be happening to me???
seriously get the fuck out to bluesky, you don't belong here
I deliberately joined a political network directly connected to free software of which all major servers and clients are free software and the dominant server for the majority of its existence was called gnu social, and now I am subjected to free software discourse, how could this be happening to me???
seriously get the fuck out to bluesky, you don't belong here
@sun I got nothing against FOSS and the initiatives to promote it. I just get annoyed when some people in the FOSS camp get over zealous at people using anything that's a non-FOSS / proprietary software at all.
I respect what FOSS does in being free and in free to modify and view the code and do what you essentially want with it as long as you follow the licensing it's coded under but there is some software I do like that is non-free (mostly games) and part of freedom is choice and I should be able to use non-free software as well as free software. With that said I wish some of the non-free software I used was more free mostly due to the draconian restrictions on DRM that I do not like at all.
I respect what FOSS does in being free and in free to modify and view the code and do what you essentially want with it as long as you follow the licensing it's coded under but there is some software I do like that is non-free (mostly games) and part of freedom is choice and I should be able to use non-free software as well as free software. With that said I wish some of the non-free software I used was more free mostly due to the draconian restrictions on DRM that I do not like at all.
@ooignignoktoo @sun @RustyCrab I'm against "FOSS" with all my might.
It tries to cover up the freedom of free software and it also tries to be neutral between free software and "open source" degeneracy, but it even fails to be neutral, as most people understand it to mean; gratis, source available software.
All free licenses qualify as "open source", but there are some nonfree licenses that qualify as "open source", so really showing preference for "open source" instead of freedom is showing preference for proprietary licenses.
>some people in the FOSS camp get over zealous at people using anything that's a non-FOSS / proprietary software at all.
The infidels in the "FOSS" camp gleefully run a bunch of proprietary software without a second thought.
If you think me making slight recommendations to think twice before installing more proprietary software is zealously, you should see me when I get into the GNU/Zealous zone.
>I respect what FOSS does in being free and in free to modify and view the code and do what you essentially want with it as long as you follow the licensing it's coded under
There are four freedoms - nothing less will do; https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html#four-freedoms
I find it bizarre that people now use the term "coding" to mean programming. For decades, we used the word "coding" for the work of low-level staff in a business programming team. The designer would write a detailed flow chart, then the "coders" would write code to implement the flow chart. This is quite different from what we did and do in the hacker community -- with us, one person designs the program and writes its code as a single activity. When I developed GNU programs, that was programming, but it was definitely not coding.
https://stallman.org/stallman-computing.html
>there is some software I do like that is non-free (mostly games) and part of freedom is choice and I should be able to use non-free software as well as free software.
You cannot use nonfree software (aside from the sole purpose of getting rid of it) and keep your freedom.
>I wish some of the non-free software I used was more free mostly due to the draconian restrictions on DRM that I do not like at all.
Free software is always free of digital handcuffs, why settle for 324221st rate?
It tries to cover up the freedom of free software and it also tries to be neutral between free software and "open source" degeneracy, but it even fails to be neutral, as most people understand it to mean; gratis, source available software.
All free licenses qualify as "open source", but there are some nonfree licenses that qualify as "open source", so really showing preference for "open source" instead of freedom is showing preference for proprietary licenses.
>some people in the FOSS camp get over zealous at people using anything that's a non-FOSS / proprietary software at all.
The infidels in the "FOSS" camp gleefully run a bunch of proprietary software without a second thought.
If you think me making slight recommendations to think twice before installing more proprietary software is zealously, you should see me when I get into the GNU/Zealous zone.
>I respect what FOSS does in being free and in free to modify and view the code and do what you essentially want with it as long as you follow the licensing it's coded under
There are four freedoms - nothing less will do; https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html#four-freedoms
I find it bizarre that people now use the term "coding" to mean programming. For decades, we used the word "coding" for the work of low-level staff in a business programming team. The designer would write a detailed flow chart, then the "coders" would write code to implement the flow chart. This is quite different from what we did and do in the hacker community -- with us, one person designs the program and writes its code as a single activity. When I developed GNU programs, that was programming, but it was definitely not coding.
https://stallman.org/stallman-computing.html
>there is some software I do like that is non-free (mostly games) and part of freedom is choice and I should be able to use non-free software as well as free software.
You cannot use nonfree software (aside from the sole purpose of getting rid of it) and keep your freedom.
>I wish some of the non-free software I used was more free mostly due to the draconian restrictions on DRM that I do not like at all.
Free software is always free of digital handcuffs, why settle for 324221st rate?
Follow
@ooignignoktoo @RustyCrab @Suiseiseki @sun This guy is just taking everything Richard Stallman says as gospel, not realizing that the is a reason why the community split back in 1998. Personally, I think the "open source" movement also has flaws, but Stallman using the term "free software" to define his idea of software respecting user's freedom was a terrible mistake. FOSS seems to take the best of both worlds.
@Suiseiseki @RustyCrab @ooignignoktoo @sun I know that the open-source movement has corporate interests involved but the other part of the reason why there was a split was because people thought that Stallman was simply advocating for freeware, due to the name confusion. I'd argue that there wouldn't be a split if Stallman simply called it the "Libre Software Movement". And it's not like Stallman is against people profiting off of "free software".
@xianc78 @Suiseiseki @ooignignoktoo @sun open source people are notoriously terrible at naming stuff. Hardly anybody on the face of the earth knows what "libre" means and it's a terrible nothing word to brand yourself with. "Free Software" at the very least gives normies an idea of what you're talking about even if their perception of it won't be initially accurate. That's better than them having no mental foothold by hearing a phrase they can't even spell. The details come later and that's okay.
@RustyCrab @Suiseiseki @xianc78 @ooignignoktoo I think the best current tech acronym is FAGMAN, it really evokes just the right thing.
@RustyCrab @Suiseiseki @ooignignoktoo @sun "Libre" or "Liber" is Latin for "free", as in freedom. It's a common Latin root word. Words like "liberty", "liberation", "liberalism", "libertarianism", "Liberia" come from it.
@RustyCrab >Hardly anybody on the face of the earth knows what "libre" means
Most English readers have seen the word "liberty" and it isn't hard to work out what libre means if you know what liberty means.
>The details come later and that's okay.
The details coming later is not okay if people never end up actually learning of them.
With free software, the details come up first and foremost.
With "open source", the details almost never come and as a result, most supporters have never seen the "osd" and assume it means that the source code is publicly available.
Most English readers have seen the word "liberty" and it isn't hard to work out what libre means if you know what liberty means.
>The details come later and that's okay.
The details coming later is not okay if people never end up actually learning of them.
With free software, the details come up first and foremost.
With "open source", the details almost never come and as a result, most supporters have never seen the "osd" and assume it means that the source code is publicly available.
@xianc78 @RustyCrab @ooignignoktoo @sun >but the other part of the reason why there was a split was because people thought that Stallman was simply advocating for freeware, due to the name confusion.
No-one who ever has actually listened to Stallman has left thinking he advocates for freeware - he very clearly states that free means freedom and defines free software in his talks.
People often make the assumption that you're referring to gratis software, but such confusion is very easily corrected by simply stating something along the lines of; "Remember that in English free means freedom and not gratis no matter the dishonesty of advertisers." and no listener will every make the same mistake again (you simply cannot forget the GNUish eye glint of freedom).
Meanwhile, "open source" makes for a much worse assumption, almost every single person (including "open source" supporters) I've come across has assumed that it means that the source is publicly available (as that is the natural meaning of the term and the original meaning of "open source intelligence") and there is no way to correct that assumption with a single sentence - it would take a 20 minute explanation going over the "osd" (few "open source" supports have seen that document) as well as the free software definition for anyone to get it - so what happens in practice is that the mistake continues to proliferate.
The main reason why "open source" was defined as ESR and others had a problem with freedom; http://catb.org/~esr/open-source.html
Of course the writing is very dishonest - ESR knew that free means freedom and the FSF has always pointed that out in their "propaganda", but of course he claimed that such is "very ambiguous"
The true reason is of course carefully put into the second place; "Second, the term makes a lot of corporate types nervous." - all ESR was interested is was getting funding from corporate types to allow for higher quality software, faster, no matter the consequences.
>I'd argue that there wouldn't be a split if Stallman simply called it the "Libre Software Movement".
There would have been a subversion all the same, as corporate types do not like people ever even hearing that software freedom is a thing, no matter what word is used to describe it.
By all means say libre or whatever free in your language is, if you're too afraid to say that free means freedom, as it has the same meaning after all.
No-one who ever has actually listened to Stallman has left thinking he advocates for freeware - he very clearly states that free means freedom and defines free software in his talks.
People often make the assumption that you're referring to gratis software, but such confusion is very easily corrected by simply stating something along the lines of; "Remember that in English free means freedom and not gratis no matter the dishonesty of advertisers." and no listener will every make the same mistake again (you simply cannot forget the GNUish eye glint of freedom).
Meanwhile, "open source" makes for a much worse assumption, almost every single person (including "open source" supporters) I've come across has assumed that it means that the source is publicly available (as that is the natural meaning of the term and the original meaning of "open source intelligence") and there is no way to correct that assumption with a single sentence - it would take a 20 minute explanation going over the "osd" (few "open source" supports have seen that document) as well as the free software definition for anyone to get it - so what happens in practice is that the mistake continues to proliferate.
The main reason why "open source" was defined as ESR and others had a problem with freedom; http://catb.org/~esr/open-source.html
Of course the writing is very dishonest - ESR knew that free means freedom and the FSF has always pointed that out in their "propaganda", but of course he claimed that such is "very ambiguous"
The true reason is of course carefully put into the second place; "Second, the term makes a lot of corporate types nervous." - all ESR was interested is was getting funding from corporate types to allow for higher quality software, faster, no matter the consequences.
>I'd argue that there wouldn't be a split if Stallman simply called it the "Libre Software Movement".
There would have been a subversion all the same, as corporate types do not like people ever even hearing that software freedom is a thing, no matter what word is used to describe it.
By all means say libre or whatever free in your language is, if you're too afraid to say that free means freedom, as it has the same meaning after all.
Incorrect.
Before repeating anything rms has written, I determine if it is correct (the amount of time's he's correct when it pertains to software is incredible, although for other areas, he's often incorrect).
>not realizing that the is a reason why the community split back in 1998
The community was rather subverted by those who wanted to pander to the corporate interests who don't like it when people are even advised about what's considered right and what's considered wrong in a free community and to think about it and the weak willed followed them in the wrong direction.
The road is faster sure, but that road is going to proprietary hell (total enslavement of humanity).
>Stallman using the term "free software" to define his idea of software respecting user's freedom was a terrible mistake.
Free has always meant freedom, so I don't see how it could be a mistake to refer to free software as free software.
You can also say libre software, or frei software or whatever word means free if you're too afraid to say that free means freedom.
>FOSS seems to take the best of both worlds.
It is actually the worst of both worlds - it induces the reader or listener to assume that free means gratis and that "open source" means source-available.