| Re: Why the hell???
Dec 16 2009 on group No FSF! |
I don't "hate" FSF but I don't like it for various reasons (read the comments above).
And I don't want to "pay" for software. I like free software and think also the GPL is a nice license idea and it's good to use it.
But FSF acts at if it would the the representative speaker of all free software, and that's really far from reality. They don't like free speech (they want to forbid some blogs of GNOME developers, see above). They want control. They are fanatic. See for example this nice photo of Richard Stallmann - it was for years on its homepage: http://globalnerdy.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/rms.jpg I don't like people who think totalitarian and I will not support them. IMHO most free software developers are not so fanatic like Stallmann - and I want to say this here. |
|  | | Re: Use WTFPL-2, not GPL-2!
Dec 16 2009 on group No FSF! |
Not really funny. |
| |
| | | Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And the alternative is...?
Dec 5 2009 on group No FSF! |
Quote:> The whole discussion in this group is just as pathetic as its name.
It is not so pathetic at all as the GNU/Linux propaganda.
Yes, that's true. But the religious defenders of FSF doesn't even notice... |
| | | Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And the alternative is...?
Nov 28 2009 on group No FSF! |
Respective to GNU: Look at the copyright files. Most of them have "(c) FSF". At most other projects, it's "(c) MY NAME" ;-)
When you don't use one of these extra free distributions, you're evil, aren't you? At least in the thoughts of FSF. Doesn't matter that something doesn't work, it's more important to do what FSF says. That's fanatic. |
| | | Re: Re: Re: And the alternative is...?
Nov 27 2009 on group No FSF! |
I didn't say that we need other licenses. GPL2 and similar licenses are good.
However, we don't need the FSF as organization to guarantee that there is freedom. Freedom is guaranteed by the license that the programmer applies to his programs.
FSF seems to me to feel offended because they can't control everything what's free software. Only their own position is right.
Example: When you want to write software for the GNU project, you have to give away your copyright entirely to the FSF who will have absolute control and have the possibility to do what they want with the code. Almost all other big open source projects don't require to give away your copyright entirely but only to license it under the license of the code.
Example: The discussion about the names "Linux" or "GNU/Linux" shows that FSF feels offended. They think that they, and only they, _are_ free software. But free software is much more. FSF wants to claim to represent all free software, but that's simply not true. Positions in the free software community are more pluralistic than FSF wants to believe.
This are signs of fanaticism. It is dangerous to give control to a unique organization. Don't trust in FSF! It isn't the FSF that guarantees freedom, but the many developers who release their software under free licenses. Only this pluralism guarantees freedom. |
| | | Re: And the alternative is...?
Nov 23 2009 on group No FSF! |
And respect of publishing: We don't need GNU to publish. We need a free license. The GPL is one of them, but not the only one. (But others are also good.)
Use the free license you want and forget about GNU. |
| | | Re: And the alternative is...?
Nov 23 2009 on group No FSF! |
We need no alternative. Freedom is guaranteed by the many people who make free software, and not by a unique organization.
GNU wants to get the copyright of software that's published at their platforms. Why? Because they want control.
And they want control about the definition of free software. I don't trust in dictatorial institutions!
No, GNU isn't free software. We all are free software! |
| |
Search people
Current visitors
New users
Birthdays
Most active users
Back
|
|
