Stallman repeats many times in his interviews that some group went out of its way to use the term "open source" to undermine the free software movement.
Is this true?
Stallman repeats many times in his interviews that some group went out of its way to use the term "open source" to...
Angel Kelly
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
github.com
opensource.org
cvsweb.openbsd.org
comodo.com
wiki.c2.com
opensource.org
twitter.com
Carson Walker
No, that's just his autism speaking.
Stallman is generally a paranoid skitzo autist so he constantly thinks that when people refer to things in simple terms that they are insulting him, when in reality no average person is going to resite the entire stallman rant and drown themselfs with the very small legalize that makes Foss different to opensource.
From the average point of view, Foss and opensource both refer to if you can see and read the actual code, and they don't think about anything dealing with how that code is treated, just if you can read it.
Just like how people refer to linux as linux and not gnu/linux because to them being able to convey what their talking about is more important then technical terms.
Stallman, and most autistis like him don't understand this and thus they treat it as an attack.
Brody Peterson
In his reasons yes, in the sense that the movement / group that advocates for open source does not go over the freedom as it's just a bonus additive along with easier development from outsiders, better security, etc. But you shouldn't take stallman's reasons too serious, his efforts is more admirable.
Liam Morgan
But it's true that "open source" and "free as in beer" have different ideals, and that more "open source" is promoted the less spotlight "free as in beer" software receives.
You speak of 'people' and 'average point of view' but it's true that their views are extremely easy to eskew and is the reason why stallman and many others place emphasis on the distinction.
Aiden Walker
In this instance we're not refering to 'free as in beer' but how the sourcecode is made avaible.
Please, behave yourself and read before posting.
This has nothing to do with freeware and more to do with the Opensource vs Foss distinction.
Elijah Bennett
Referring to what? open source and foss are different things. They overlap in many areas but they are not the same.
Camden Barnes
Do both allow you to read the source code? yes.
This is what makes them the same and honestly it's the only thing that average people care about.
Technically, yes. they are very different, as they both have their own unique way of dealing with how the code is handled, but they are, essentually, both dealing with source code.
This make them alike in the yes of average people so they don't think about it much, there is much reason to as they aren't that kind of developer anyway.
But just like your reaction, it seems as if both are being grouped together unfairly when there are differences.
The loud and sperg fit way of making these differences known makes one seems completely unappealing.
Stallman. while correct. is not actually under attack by these people, just misunderstood.
If he behaved himself in a more respecting manor maybe we wouldn't be in this mess that we are now.
Matthew King
What you're saying is like saying murder carried by an individual and state executions are the same since it both kills people and people who try to distinguish the two are somehow autistic.
I am sorry that you can't distinguish something so simple.
Julian Long
This is why no one cares about foss, you can't come straight forward and discuss the differences without sperg fitting and flinging shit everywhere.
Ian King
And term phrases somehow aren't simple for simple sake? I don't understand your point, when people refer to linux as linux they are indeed refering to the whole package like gnu/linx but it done in a harmless way that makes it more digestable in conversation without needing to stick out a long paragraph of what exactly you mean, most people understand what your talking about from context, something that autists also have troubles with.
Context, read between the lines sometime, honey.
Easton Watson
Calm down you passive aggressive autistic sperg schizo faggot and learn to read.
Anthony Jackson
How mature of you.
Kevin Ramirez
Coming from the kid who can't do anything other than sperg out how everyone but himself is a sperg.
Take your meds kid.
Robert Harris
Take a look at the OP, the main topic is weither ot not Stallman is actually being attacked.
Which, he isn't. It's simple misunderstandings from people with less technical skill and it's fueled by outbursts like the one you've presented so generously.
This is the topic, and you haven't been reading a single thing.
Jackson Thomas
Yes, "open source" is pushed by jews attempting to make shit like redis adopting the "commons clause" (a distinctly nonfree license) acceptable
Logan Lopez
l m a o
Liam Gonzalez
As a part of EEE, it's likely?
Jeremiah Reed
If people were interested in promoting freedom to users, then logically speaking, you'd be using language that encourages the spread of freedom. People use the term "open source" because the idea of spreading freedom is not so important to them.
Leo Powell
See the difference, maggot?
Ryan Taylor
Learn to read past the first sentence.
Jose Reed
I think the issue is blow out of proportions, but I can see corporations at least preferring for Open Source to be more known than Free Software. Perhaps not to undermine Free Software, but rather to push something more aligned with them in its place.
Open Source is easy to understand, it means the source code is open, it's right in the name. Free Software suffers because of the English language where "free" has two meanings. It also doesn't help that "free as in free speech" and "free as in free beer" are autistic comparisons. Why not just call it "free as in freedom" and "free as in free of charge"? I know what freedom means, but free speech means some higher authority cannot censor me expressing my opinion. As long as the government is not trying to shut down my software there is really no connection to free speech.
Another problem is that on the surface both Open Source and Free Software are very similar. I tried reading up on the philosophies and I just could not spot the difference, so I assumed it was just Stallman being autistic because his term was older. It was not until I learned about TiVoization and the different stances by Stallman and Torvalds that it finally made sense to me.
Open Source is about benefiting the author of the software by allowing improvements to be made to the software and allowing the original author to get those improvements back. Imagine it like blocking the third E in EEE. As for the user? Who gives a fuck. Free Software on the other hand is about the user, the fact that the original developer can also reap the benefits is a fortunate side effect.
Nolan Barnes
The difference is that just free software complies with Stallman's four freedoms, open source only has to partially comply with one of them.
There are projects which are open source but have restrictive licenses, an example might be a piece of software which, while is open source, has a license with limitations such as non-commercial use only and no modifications or redistribution (unless the user pays, which commercial entities are usually willing to do if the software is useful).
Luke Myers
For most practical concerns, the terms are indeed equal; it's quite possible that two different concerns can lead to the same practical conclusion. What is different is in the values of the team that is driving the software project: does the team encourage users to install proprietary software or does the team discourage users to install proprietary software? The reason why this is the way to distinguish is related to why the free software movement exists in the first place.
Daniel Bell
It makes sense when you consider that companies try to accumulate as much "intellectual property" as possible, in order to have control and also an edge over any competition. They would consider free(dom) software as heresy, since it doesn't give them any advantage, but rather hands more power over to the population at large. IIRC "open source" was coined to make Linux stuff more palatable to corporates. But it's true that just having source code available for something doesn't mean you're legally allowed to share your modifications and build upon it. So for our purposes, open source is not enough.
RMS related video from 2014 here:
youtube.com
Christopher Brown
fucking cunts fuck off
7 year old fucks who can't read at all shouldn't be having access to internet
I'm amazed he hasn't give up yet.
this
of course it is
normalizing the term to refer to all open source is bullshit, as it differs quite a bit
Blake Morales
bullshit, there are many open source people who are obsessed with the freedom part of it
Michael Phillips
what's next, a food analogy?
meanwhile stallman is a literal jew who eats gunk off of his feet and wants to legalize pedophilia. also his software movement is full of pink haired trannies and code of conducts
Matthew Taylor
If those faggots are, then they shouldn't use open source to describe their project, but free and open source instead.
Thomas Morales
BSD style licenses are free and open source yet GNUtards still sperg out.
Xavier Garcia
Stallman is a literal jew, but it's mostly offset by his autism. Autism redirects his subversion away from society and into the completely pozzed software development industry. I would argue he's changed the industry for the greater good, it's easier for some random imageboard sperg to start a company now due to the abundance of free software at their disposal
Didn't some coreboot tranny sperg out because of stallman and disassociate its project from the gnu foundation?
Landon Watson
It's a mistake to assume all permissively licensed software as being free software. In practice, you need to evaluate each permissively licensed software distribution one at a time to find out if the specific distribution is free software or not. This is because due to the nature of permissive licensing, it is possible for a program to have a permissive license and be proprietary software at the same time.
Sebastian Morris
Permissive licenses allow anyone to grab the code, make it proprietary and run with it. Let's say you invent the Loo file format, develop a library and license it under the BSD or MIT license. Now PooSoft comes along, grabs your code and develops an app for processing Loo files, but makes it proprietary. Even though your libloo is Free, you have been complicit in the creation of proprietary software.
With copyleft on the other hand, if PooSoft wants to use your libloo, they would have to make their software Free as well. Of course one could argue whether the adoption of a new Free file format is more important than the end-user software, but for other types of libraries there is a strong point in favor of copyleft.
He's a half-Jew.
It was Libreboot
Joseph Thompson
Opensource and Free software are not the same thing. There are literally proprietary programs that are completely open source but the user is not allowed to modify the code or use the code in any way shape or form.
Ayden Morgan
in short, yes and no.
No because that's his part of the story or his interpretation of it.
Yes because legally and technically speaking open source is actually undermining the freedom of users.
Since anons like can't distinguish open source from software freedom (free/libre) here's a short resume.
Open source is a licensing methodology that considers to gives users and companies access to the source code. It's more of an umbrella term since it also includes license that are Freedom respecting like the GPL. But in practice it is mostly promoted for project with permissive licensing which can be abused by other companies.
Software Freedom (free/libre) is a licensing methodology that considers that users should be in complete control of their computer. Unlike open source it is not an umbrella term since it has a strict set of rules to ensure that Freedoms never get lost, Freedoms that are perpetuated. The only know licenses that fully respects these set of rules is the GPLv3 and AGPLv3.
To insure that licensing issues cannot fragment projects the GPLv3 is compatible with mostl licenses that are considered as open source.
Brandon Bennett
somewhat true
outright lie
It's nice you created this thread just to shit on him.
out-of blue warmongering
will not participate, but I give you social approvement point, OP
Gabriel Taylor
Are you sure about that? I'm fairly sure that if the user is not allowed to modify the code, then that software violates the open source definition.
Owen Rodriguez
Proprietary > OSS > FOSS
Mason Powell
I understand the argument but it doesn't mean that BSD licensed software isn't free and open source and does follow stallmans freedoms.
That's the same kind of retarded logic that make stupid single white women protest at gun manufacturers every time a shooting happens
now imagine a world where a company called redpoo takes your userland and subverts your whole os and everyone starts using their pile of shit poetteringware. whoops, looks like the ganoo license didn't protect us against fuck all in practice!
Ryan King
Im sure his political notes and support for the Green party persuaded atleast someone
Colton Smith
You're completely mistaken, BSD and MIT licenses fully follow Stallmans 4 freedoms. Derivative software may not but that's a completely different question, BSD licensed software is FREE as in freedom and open source.
Andrew Garcia
im not op, check your jewish paranoia privilege
Connor Hernandez
Permissive free software licenses allow the software to be free software, but you cannot assume that all software distributions with these licenses to be free software. It is very possible to license a proprietary program under the BSD license because there is no obligation for the program to be free software.
Jayden Peterson
Yes. Just look who uses this term - facebook, google, microsoft. They all say they love "open source", whereas they are botnet lovers. When you say freedom, you show freedom is important to you. By saying open source, you show that the only thing that matters is source, not ethics. That term is convenient for corporations, they don't care about freedom, they care about money. I remember the time, I didn't know about GNU and free software movement, what I knew was only "Linux". I was reading posts about why "open source" is better than proprietary software, but I was subconsciously looking for freedom. I also remember when I first discovered free software movement and GNU - all that open source shit turned out to be fake. More examples:
Mozilla calls firefox open source, mozilla adds spyware to it's browser.
Discord's open source API.
SystemDick.
Telegram, which is partially proprietary.
Corporations doing "open source" software often just make convenient way of interacting with their botnets.
Carter Peterson
I never said that BSD is not a Free license, I said it's not a copyleft license.
It's still the less bad scenario, because at least you are allowed to remove all the potteringware shit. Yes, it's hard, but you won't land in jail for attempting it.
Isaiah Richardson
Bait but whatever.
No they don't.
MIT/BSD
Freedom 0
Can be removed under if licensed MIT/BSD.
Freedom 1
Can be removed under MIT/BSD.
Freedom 2
Can be removed under MIT/BSD.
Freedom 3
Can be removed under MIT/BSD.
Under GPLv3 Freedoms 0,1,2,3 cannot be removed.
Microsoft already does that, part of BSDs network stack is implemented since windows xp.
Nathan Perry
That's exactly the problem, all "open source" means is you can view the code. It says nothing about your freedoms relating to the code. See github.com
Evan Rogers
The Open Source Initiative (OSD) has a very specific definition of Open Source:
opensource.org
I think the OSD definition of Open Source is a good default, and it's mostly in line with the FSF's Free Software definition.
Brayden Wright
The OSI can claim whatever it wants, but the literal interpretation of "open source" means publicly available source code. Organizations with bad intentions (like redis labs) will exploit this, something that is harder to do with "free software" (or "libre software" if you want an even less ambiguous term)
Tyler Ward
Unreal Engine 4 is open source. Go get it.
Brandon Murphy
We already know from many leaked documents and public statements that a variety of big companies and industry groups hate the GPL and Stallman himself. He always ends up being right about the important stuff. In this particular case we already know it's true.
I can tell you're fucking India you ass fucker.
James Jackson
MS-DOS is now "open source" but they don't grant you any rights to compile, use, distribute, or change it. Free Software like GPL or BSD licensed software would allow all those things.
Nathan Long
Link to leaked dox, pls
Ethan Russell
TECHNOLOGY
Leo Hill
7 years ago, OpenBSD removed Rogue from their /usr/games collection, due to license reasons. They were doing a big license audit at the time, various other stuff got purged as well.
cvsweb.openbsd.org
Austin Gomez
Stop spreading misinformation you fucking kike. If a software is released under the BSD license that software is free and open source software.
SystemD is released under GNU LGPL so you defeat your own argument.
The real less bad scenario is using an operating system created by people who care about freedom and doesn't obsess over some autistic kike license. Like OpenBSD.
You fucking retard. I could take the GPL and rewrite that to whatever I want and then release my code under that license.
Why is it so important for you to get free shit? The single most important aspect of free software is that you have access to the code so you can read it and compile it yourself as to make sure you're not being botnetted. Just don't use that redislab shit if you don't want to, there are plenty of alternatives you can redistribute freely into your own rectum. Your definition of freedom is actually putting restrictions on developers, it's like a socialist saying that their system is freer than capitalism. Maybe in some respects but in terms of actual real negative liberties it absolutely isn't. Again the most important aspect is that I have access to the code of whatever I'm running, so that I can know that I'm not being exploited. Inb4 "if you run open source software youre being exploited" or some such socialist tripe.
You can modify any license you want.
Charles Anderson
Does anyone know who the first person or group to push the 'open source' definition is?
Colton Harris
It was 20 years ago now, just Jewgle for "microsoft linux halloween documents" and boom, there ya go.
That's cool, it's not like they'll stop me from compiling it if I want it though.
Connor Young
You're wrong to assume this is true for every case. Comodo Dragon has been forked from Chromium, it is licensed under the MIT licenses and BSD licenses and yet it is proprietary software. Cedega, the fork of Wine, is licensed under the X11 license and it is proprietary software.
People like these permissive free software licenses specifically because they want the ability to fork the software into proprietary software. Forking software doesn't change the license; the license remains permissive but the software becomes proprietary.
Brody Myers
OSI
Dylan Diaz
That is the most backwards pants on head retarded logic I have ever seen.
Comodo dragon is not licensed under the BSD or MIT licenses, it is proprietary freeware. This is the license comodo dragon is released under comodo.com
A few parts that Comodo is distributed with are BSD licensed and some are GPL licensed and these have their full source codes available. Cedega wasn't licensed under the X11 license. You have no fucking clue what you're talking about, like most GNUtards
how do you come up with this dumb shit
Josiah Peterson
That's why you're confused. You don't believe it's possible to have permissively licensed proprietary software.
Oliver Torres
You're literally retarded.
Easton Williams
GPL is not FOSS. Stallman is a cuck that uses too many big words for simple concepts..
Unlicense and its derivatives are the only real FOSS.
Robert Roberts
No it is not, that is my main objection to GPL and most commonly used software licences today and why I am so hard on my ways of Unlicense and its derivatives being the solution. Software development should be treated as a true commons, in that there is a free exchange in ideas, software should neither be proprietary, have an owner nor accept donations through services like Patreon that benefit only a single user. Companies should be looking for the best talent to contribute to the commons for the betterment of the community as a whole.
This is software socialism, instead of software communism (The GPL).
Sebastian Peterson
"It's not open source" is just Richard Stallman's version of "Sonic's arms are not blue"
Austin Robinson
the problem with open-source is that it isn't well defined term.
Benjamin Gomez
So long as the source code is available, it's open source.
Oliver Stewart
the problem with stallmans autistic rants is that it makes people believe that the BSD license is not FOSS
William Morgan
Take a look at the Ken Thompson hack to know why "open source" is completely meaningless, as opposed to "free software", which addresses a whole different issue
Matthew Robinson
It's as well defined as "free software."
opensource.org
Andrew Barnes
That's your own confusion with Stallman. Stallman actually says that permissive free software licenses do support freedom. What he also says is that permissive free software licenses have the problem in which people will fork them to make the forks as proprietary software.
Julian Martin
Stallman uses specific terms for the very good reason of not causing confusion. You know that the words were carefully chosen because the same words are used every speech, every interview, every explanation.
Saying that his choice of words causes confusion makes me question your education and I hope it's just one guy.
Thomas Brown
Plenty of people misunderstand it, like this guy
Jaxson Butler
Not true
David Hall
You're also misunderstanding the message. Permissive free software licenses do support freedom, but there is no guarantee because there is no obligation to support freedom. People are allowed to license proprietary software as permissive licensed proprietary software.
Ian Stewart
There ought to be a wordfilter on Zig Forums that replaces "freedom" with "Stallman's idiosyncratic definition of freedom" or something like that. Stallman (ab)use of the word is one of the reasons that so much confusion perpetually surrounds the concept of "free software."
I've never been able to figure out whether that's a tactic or just autism on Stallman's part. He's certainly read Orwell and knows the power of language to shape opinion and thought. Free software!? Everybody likes free. And freedom is good, right?
On the other hand, it may just be another example of Stallman's habit of redefining words to align with his political sensibilities. That kind of thing is all over his personal writings on his website.
Luis Richardson
Digital information technology contributes to the world by making it easier to copy and modify information. Computers promise to make this easier for all of us. Not everyone wants it to be easier. The system of copyright gives software programs “owners”, most of whom aim to withhold software's potential benefit from the rest of the public. They would like to be the only ones who can copy and modify the software that we use.
When we say freedom in software, it means users have the freedom to practice four specific acts. When users have those four freedoms, then users are not controlled by the owners of proprietary software i.e. users have freedom.
That's all it means: users are the ones who control the software and not the other way around.
Logan Wilson
What's up with this wave of anti-Stallman sentiment and anti-Free Software sentiment I've been seeing lately? It's even been in the financial press. I worry about Stallman's safety with these glowniggers running around.
Carson Wilson
Pretty sure it's just one kid. He repeatedly uses the same words, formats his post the same and displays the same low level intelligence every post.
Alexander Reed
one dedicated kid
Connor Miller
saged and downvoated