No FSF!

Invite people to join
Join group
Activate message notification

Description:	FSF isn't freedom. FSF is fanaticism.
Members:	17
Comments:	45

Created:	Nov 21 2009
Changed:	Nov 28 2009
Readability:	readable for everybody
Membership:	everybody can join

And the alternative is...?

by d1337r on: Nov 23 2009

Score 50%

d1337r

Can you tell me the name of any GNU alternative that does allow you to open your source code, but does not allow proprietary companies like Microsoft use it?

Deleted because of bad score

Deleted because of bad score

aNordal
Home

Re: One computer freedom

by RyanMcCoskrie on: Jul 22 2010

Score 50%

RyanMcCoskri e
VisualShell
Home

There is one computer freedom.
That is the freedom to do as you want with your computer.

Stallman's software freedoms are simply facets of this one freedom.

Re: Re: And the alternative is...?

by rinfinity on: Jun 3 2012

Score 88%

rinfinity

*For a program to be GNU software [u]does not require transferring copyright to the FSF[u]**; that is a separate question. If you transfer the copyright to the FSF, the FSF will enforce the GPL for the program if someone violates it; if you keep the copyright, enforcement will be up to you*

Source: http://www.gnu.org/help/evaluation.html

Hope, this clears a very big misunderstanding here.

Deleted because of bad score

Re: Re: And the alternative is...?

by TheRob on: Nov 23 2009

Score 65%

TheRob
Home

haha! youre funny man

\\\\\\\"life sucks, get a f***ing helmet alright!\\\\\\\" -Denis Leary
Reply to this

Re: Re: And the alternative is...?

by Shinobiteno on: Nov 27 2009

Score 88%

I dont understand this.
There always been "public domain" license, which is an absence of license. Any software which is in public domain can be manipulated, renamed, stolen authorship, relicensed, taken into closed source. The problem is, this does not prevent anyone from claiming this code, joining and starting to make money out of this as if it was his own. Such software will keep microsoft and any similar monopolistic license and patent lovers on top. It helps them. If this is the sort of freedom you promote, you can happily start writing and publishing using this. You will never be credited and you work will be stolen by some Bill and integrated into his OS. It will produce anarchy-like freedom like in Zoo cage - a conglomirate of several mighty grunts which keep everyone down by the law of brute force. And if you want to prevent this, you have to have similar force, but which is OPEN to you AS LONG AS YOU are OPEN to it. Which in essence is GPL(v3).

Just fyi, there is zlib and BSD-like licenses, whose only restriction is to keep the authorship bound to original author, along with this note. But they do not prevent code lockdown/integration/assimilation(is this your code? rly? can you prove it?). MS-like systems profit from BSD code no way less than from public domain/licenseless code.

Richard Stallman is an exceptionally altruistic human, who cares about future and who understands importance of informational technology.If it wasnt Stallman, we'd already be paying huge licensing fees for the products we dont really need, but which have placed themself as life-essentual, and which spy and control us without any possibility for us to fight back or even to DETECT it.

You have played Valves Portal or Bullfrogs Syndicate Wars? This are good examples.

So please study the subject before you issue such claims. Im proud to have linux in my router, which come with GPL license; and in my Toshiba 42" TV, which has GPL license drawn on 107 cm screen.

Because only if you KNOW and can PROVE, you can be safe. Trust is a weakness.

Deleted because of bad score

Re: Re: Re: Re: And the alternative is...?

by Shinobiteno on: Nov 27 2009

Score 88%

GPL3 is much better, as it makes sure no technical measure would prevent running same modified code on same hardware.

I dont understand you regarding the GNU project. Yes, if you write for GNU project(gnu toolchain) and your patches get accepted, your code becomes part of gnu project(isn't it something you wanted?) and you,and information on your patch, are added to the list of authors. It would be same is you writing for KDE or GNOME project. You are writing for them, dont you? You dont loose your authorship to your patch, but you loose the possiblity to OWN, since it OWN equals PREVENT. And I dont see any point to PREVENT other people from using code, unless: 1) you want to keep it only for yourself. 2) you want to sell it.

GPL prohibits code trade(code copy for the purpose of making money and preventing others to do so), but explicitly allows coding for money.
Thats right, "intellectual property" as some sort of patenting several bytes is disallowed. But it does not remove ownership or copyright as an author. So if anycorp integrates GPL code written by YOU, they violate YOUR copyright, and FSF can help protect you, because they are authors of GPL. Big OPEN Brother. If you dont accept this, there are Creative Commons licenses(CC), one of which is similar to GPL, BUT if someone brakes it, YOU will be there alone. Personally I cannot image the author of USB input patch go on microsoft alone, just because they have copied his code. He wont win, bcs he is too small.

Speaking on GNU project, if you dont want to implement it as a patch, you can make it your own stand alone project and it will exist as a separate entity of open code. Which can make into other open code at any time, thats the sense of being open.

Regarding GNU/Linux thing is whole different story. GNU is "a much bigger project - as Linus once said", yet they could not implement the kernel, which is much smaller project but no less important. GNU is a toolchain, Linux is kernel. You can have a Linux kernel with BSD toolchain, or BSD kernel with GNU toolchain. Or Hurd kernel with GNU toolchain. I personally dont understand why linus separates linux from GNU, but its his right because he IS the author.

BTW if you would implement linux kernel with BSD toolchain, it would be BSD/linux. Since BSD has kernel and toolchain with matching names, it is refered simply as BSD. =)

Deleted because of bad score

urwald

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And the alternative is...?

by rinfinity on: Jun 3 2012

Score 86%

rinfinity

For a program to be GNU software does not require transferring copyright to the FSF; that is a separate question. If you transfer the copyright to the FSF, the FSF will enforce the GPL for the program if someone violates it; if you keep the copyright, enforcement will be up to you.

Source:http://www.gnu.org/help/evaluation.html

Hence, FSF gives the freedom NOT to trust FSF itself by retaining the copyright.

Deleted because of bad score

urwald

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And the alternative is...?

by Shinobiteno on: Nov 28 2009

Score 81%

I have never published code directly to FSF, so Im not informed that FSF removes you as author from your work or implements GPL license differently or that you cant relicense your own work later to other free license. But I also never met the case where person would like to do his code as GPL for only purpose for others to debug it and then close it,..

It would be nice if you would provide links to licensing for comparsion, FSF vs KDE. I searched, but was unable to find the infos. :(

Besides GNU is very old and I dont expect them to change freedom protection. All 3 licenses have constantly improved it. See also http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html, paragraph 14.

Yes, Im aware of gNewSense(as result of Debian including binary blobs into mainsteam) and UTUTO. They are both awesome.

Personally I would switch to them or use my current ones(Debian, Arch) if:

1) I wouldnt be in need of accelerated hardware OpenGL v3+(Ati did something in that direction, but seems to abadon that, Novel does FOSS ati drivers; shame on ATI!). Nvidia at least does it properly, but everything is closed down for the reason their driver is crossplatform and releasing it for linux would mean opening it for windows. Which is kind of weak explanation :/ I still would buy opensource accel. 3D card, if it emerges.

2) Flash. Gnash does something, albeit with swfdec. But the guiltiness lies on Google(owners of youtube) for not keeping flash version to at least minimum supported by gnash(7 or 8). And I await W3 to include capabilities similar to flash in upcoming open standart which would eliminate the need for it(HTML5 afaik, not sure).

(3) Im not using Wifi, but some reported issues with broadcom-based devices. Broadcom simply refused opening them. You know, they like to spy on you and make you enjoy bugs.

As you see BOTH scenarios share something similar: Im forced to use them, because they have placed themself in monopolistic position. One in 3D, currently no alternative, other in Web2.0, currently no alternative.

But if we would take fair market, I would use opensource for the reasons I mentioned in previous post.

Deleted because of bad score

Deleted because of bad score

tomatz

Deleted because of bad score

Deleted because of bad score

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And the alternative is...?

by Shinobiteno on: Dec 4 2009

Score 81%

Although I appreciate the informations you gave, I must admit there was nothing new to me. Kernel is critical OS processes like sheduling, semaphores and conflict resolution, resources management and IO usually running in zero ring if permitted by cpu architecture or via emulation; and all other stuff running in other, less privileged space.

The whole idea of separation based on weither kernel modules are linked at compile time or at runtime using dedicated mechanisms is not worthy any attention. If you compile it runtime and know what you will need, the whole house will run much faster compared to runtime detection and management, because there is not much to deside and manage at the time of operation. Sometimes that can be very critical, google for windows nt video driver perfomance trouble. On the contrary, if you dont know what hw will "suddenly appear", mono may not run at all.This are simply different concepts which bring different results, none of them is right. Linux has a built-in possibility of runtime kernel module attachments, so its much more hybrid. Word which basically means "it is what you want it to be". Go forth, strip it of all modules and add hardware detection and attachting logic and you have a micro kernel.

If I allow myself to cut down all that from what you said above, the only reasoning that is left is: GNU is bad, GNU wants to control you, GNU wants to restrict you to their licenses.
Fine, I have no problem with this, write your own license, maintain it, define rights protection. I wish you very much luck with this(no sarcasm). There were a lof of attempts to do so and they still persist. Whole of which results in open systems being constantly held loosing, underdeveloped crap or important parts of them going proprietary or no longer developed.

This is the situation which GPL is designed to prevent. Just because the technology is MUCH bigger thing with much much wider impact radius on the whole society than patented child bike. Googlevideo "revolutionOS".

Linus is not a chief of linux kernel, which he said to his indian collegues in film "the code"(googlevideo). He is the original author and highly respected professional. GNU slash Linux issue is also covered there with interviews from Stallman and Linus. FSF is an organization devoted only to prevention source close-down, because of role information plays in this age. I mean, before trying to accuse someone, why not put yourself into his shoes and understand his reasoning? Does Stallman drive ferrari or runs slavery sect? Does he get payed for what he does? Does he appretiate GNU put infront of Linux for what he has done and still does(he has a blog & rss feed btw)? Definate yes from me. GNU is evil, it will steal your source, it will close it down and earn money, it will enslave whole planet. The whole discussion in this group is just as pathetic as its name. Feel free to start "Not-so-free Software Foundation".

FYI, no, I'm not RMS and not working with him, not even slightly.

Deleted because of bad score

Deleted because of bad score

Re: Re: Re: Re: And the alternative is...?

by Fri13 on: Dec 2 2009

Score 54%

Quote:
You are loosing all rights - that means that even yourself can't reproduce the code you've written under the license you want. If, for example, you want to license it _additionally_ to GPL also in LPGP, CC or whatever, you can't do this anymore because you don't earn anymore the copyright. You must ask FSF to do it.

GPL does include good parts of the copyright, still being copyleft license. You do not loose rights to your code at all. You can relicense your code with other license if you want. But you can not relicense the others code. You can code 50 000 LoC's and after few years when others have extended it to 500 000 LoC's, you can grab the code what you wrote (50 000) and relicense it if wanted. But you can not take back the code anymore what you have once licensed under GPL. But you can then relicense the copy of that 50 000 LoC's code with other and all modifications for that code would be under that license.

You always maintain the copyright to the code what you license under GPL. If no one ever downloads your binary (or your source), you can always relicense it with closed one and no one can ask the source code. FSF never owns your code at all.

What is Linux and GNU/Linux?
http://tinyurl.com/532kb8
http://tinyurl.com/mum9x
http://tinyurl.com/ngarn8
http://tinyurl.com/qhuhg
http://tinyurl.com/3uaq48
Reply to this

Deleted because of bad score

urwald

Deleted because of bad score

An actual answer, regarding the OP's question

by cyberpunkspike on: Feb 8 2013

Score 63%

cyberpunkspi ke
Home

I feel I must disclose, I fully support the FSF, and the GNU GPL/LGPL 3.

Although to simply answer your question, yes such a licence does exists, but it's slightly more generally scoped. It should still be usable for a software project, but i'm not familiar with the hard semantics.

The licence, which may be familiar, is called the 'CC BY-NC 3.0'. You can learn about it in more detail at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/deed.en_US. Its the best choice, I've seen up to this point, for the objectives stated.

I still fully endorse the GNU licences, although If you're seeking this different type of licence, the CC's are quality licences.

An additional comment, just my personal opinion,.

by cyberpunkspike on: Feb 8 2013

Score 63%

cyberpunkspi ke
Home

I've seen many advocate BSD style "licences". I STRONGLY recommend, choosing an alternative licence. Not because of ideology, or anything related the concept, but because they are legally sub-optimal. This also applies to the MIT/ZLIB, and similar, style licences.

If you're seeking a permissive style licence, of the "opensource" ideology, I highly suggest the Apache License, Version 2.0. It grants the BSD style non-copyleft rights, and is written in proper legal form.

Deleted because of bad score

Deleted because of bad score

izento
home

Re: Stallmann wants control GNOME

by Shinobiteno on: Mar 3 2010

Score 81%

Ugh, its been a while since I posted to this group. Fri13 (sorry cannot reply to your post, no reply link), I hope you can still read my comment.

So you are saying Stallman is preventing freedom, because he prevents sheep jumping off the fence, walking away from the ranch, limiting choice to staying inside, telling lies about wolves(yes god lied to man, didn't he?).

Anyway this is a reaction of the GNOME founder:
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-list/2009-December/msg00102.html

The truth is RMS limit is freedom, and Miguels freedom means a limit. We should limit ourselves to limit our freedom. No, everyone should be free to do what he want, hey gimme my gun!

A wolf will always tell sheep, they need each other, until another wolf joins and they three carry out "democratic" decision, whats for the dinner. Keeping opensource software as a sheep for proprietary wolves, way to go Miguel!

Someone didn't understood something I think. Opensource isnt addition to proprietary in form of a meat. It is self-proficient, concurrent, different form of IT, that separates information from property. You are viewing software in categories of public and private property. You cannot apply this to information. It isn't wolf to sheep relation like many want it to see. It is human to dinosaur relation. MS, soon to be found in museums. Very possibly together with BSD, since a)great part is eaten-out(and being eaten-out) by macosx b)BSD people worrying about blobs recently. Peaceful coexistence and sharing, Blob the wolf says.

From all my experience prior to linux, I have seen usable software that is: closed source, proprietary, free. Choose any two of three. The nice open projects as that either get consumed by the time they are usable, or are kept in some form that is only usable either for internal-use-only and/or with payed closed additions. Opensource does not belong to this!

We even have this awesome dual form of light/opensource // premium/proprietary for several project. Something very weird and stupid. Do fix our bugs for us for free thank you! Crapware is the only possible definition of this. Made by people which never really understood how foss is supposed to work.

Yes, Im using my brain, always. But every time I read RMS speeches, they resonate in my mind as incredibly wise,realistic and altruistic; albeit very critical sometimes (not that lovely smiley fatty Gates&Balmer AG, ugh WGA wont hurt you! In fact you need it! We will WGA your children's genome for free too! Aint he investing into human genome research already? Teh Microsoft Way). Where RMS insists on carry conscious decisions, Bill and Co whisper on sweet future, exploiting ages of anti-human research(marketing).
You buy product, you happy. You buy product, you happy. Smile! :)

Ive already expressed my attitude to this discussion, but there is one more thing Id like to mention. Russians say, a holy place is never empty. You kill god, devil takes his place. You decide who is who, just try not to miss.

Deleted because of bad score

ssuominen

Deleted because of bad score

Re: Re: Use WTFPL-2, not GPL-2!

by Fri13 on: Mar 7 2010

Score 54%

No it is not. Public Domain license (or such what would be top of these posts) are not free because no one is keeping to freedom safe.

If someone can close the source code and do what ever wants for it without giving source to those who use the software, there is no freedom.

What is Linux and GNU/Linux?
http://tinyurl.com/532kb8
http://tinyurl.com/mum9x
http://tinyurl.com/ngarn8
http://tinyurl.com/qhuhg
http://tinyurl.com/3uaq48
Reply to this

Why the hell???

by farizluqman on: Dec 16 2009

Score 81%

farizluqman
Operating System Developer(Re actOS)
Home

Why the hell you're hating Free Software Foundation, or, you want the softwares to be paid, or FSF do something wrong???

Everybody loves Windows, yeah, everybody loves it because of its fresh air, and hell, I love my door also...
Reply to this

Deleted because of bad score

Deleted because of bad score

aeza
FSF

Re: Why the hell???

by Fri13 on: Dec 18 2009

Score 43%

Quote:
Why the hell you're hating Free Software Foundation, or, you want the softwares to be paid, or FSF do something wrong???

Seems you have really understood wrong the GPL and that "Free Software" is about Liberity not about price.

GPL even suggest that developers ask money from their software. FSF does same thing.

What is Linux and GNU/Linux?
http://tinyurl.com/532kb8
http://tinyurl.com/mum9x
http://tinyurl.com/ngarn8
http://tinyurl.com/qhuhg
http://tinyurl.com/3uaq48
Reply to this

Deleted because of bad score

farizluqman
Operating System Developer(Re actOS)
Home

Re: Why the hell???

by kerenskyy on: Aug 1 2012

Score 38%

kerenskyy
Not a member of any company or proj
Home

if the software is worth something intrinsically, money should be paid to its creator,

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"If voting ever changed anything, they\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Reply to this

Deleted because of bad score

RyanMcCoskri e
VisualShell
Home

Deleted because of bad score

Deleted because of bad score

RyanMcCoskri e
VisualShell
Home

Re: Re: Choosing freedoms

by rinfinity on: Jun 5 2012

Score 86%

rinfinity

And maybe as a further step we should also rephrase "Free Speech" as "Consumer's Right of Expression" or maybe take a bold leap further and stop advocating for "Free Speech" altogether and appease governments.
Sarcasm apart, GNU, as envisioned by FSF is not primarily about creating technologically better software by using a superior development methodology(viz. Opensource Development) but about FREEDOM. So essentially, Free Software Movement(as envisioned by FSF) is a political movement.
(Source: FSF website)

Though I understand and respect your right to not to be motivated by the political goals of the movement(FREEDOM in the software world), I must mention that RMS and FSF (and me too) have equal rights to the contrary. If this means we are fanatics- so be it.

By the way, even if GNU/Linux was inferior to proprietary OSes, I'd still use it. I'd rather be a pauper with freedom than a billionaire in chains.

And I repeat again- FSF doesn't require you to surrender your copyright.
http://www.gnu.org/help/evaluation.html