5 ms·

You like the FSF? Point #1 fsf makes is that proprietary = wrong/bad/malware, period. Malware is mostly just a synonym. So if point #1 is too far, you really do

You like the FSF? Point #1 fsf makes is that proprietary = wrong/bad/malware, period. Malware is mostly just a synonym. So if point #1 is too far, you really don't get it.

johncolanduoni 11y ago
You can appreciate the FSF and Stallman without agreeing with everything they say. I think they did a lot to put open source on the map, and make us aware of the dangers with closed source software in certain areas, even if I think that their stance is overzealous.
- rando289 11y ago
  > they did a lot to put open source on the map Nope nope nope. They've publicly been the biggest voice to erase "open source" from the map since it was coined. All while acknowledging that it has mostly the same goals as the free software movement. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.e...
  - oldmanjay 11y ago
    The unfortunate thing about gnu and the fsf is that they think connotation management and "clever" wordplay are effective marketing strategies.
    - rando289 11y ago
      "Open source" was designed for the sole purpose of being "clever" wordplay and an effective marketing strategy, so you really can't blame fsf on that one. Words matter. See "pro life" vs "pro choice", see "terrorist" vs "criminal" see "migrant" vs "alleged refuge", etc. etc. The tech press are mouthpieces for the big corporations, and all of the big corporations do not want free software messing with their profits, so they use and coin words which align with their interests. It's perfectly natural for fsf to use different words.
  - johncolanduoni 11y ago
    I'm aware of their thoughts on the distinction between open and free software. However these are (a) lost on most people involved in open source and (b) largely irrelevant as far as the FSF's projects being a large part of GNU/Linux, one of the most widely used open source/free software projects, or their dedication to seeing some key legal questions that affect both open source and free software play out in court.
exo762 11y ago
This is false. E.g. they make perfectly clear that some software (e.g. games) are perfectly fine being proprietary and closed source.
- mechazawa 11y ago
  Why? If ID showed one thing it is that you can safely publish your source code as long as the user still has to pay for the actual assets.

You like the FSF? Point #1 fsf makes is that proprietary = wrong/bad/malware, period. Malware is mostly just a synonym. So if point #1 is too far, you really don't get it.

johncolanduoni 11y ago

You can appreciate the FSF and Stallman without agreeing with everything they say. I think they did a lot to put open source on the map, and make us aware of the dangers with closed source software in certain areas, even if I think that their stance is overzealous.

rando289 11y ago
> they did a lot to put open source on the map Nope nope nope. They've publicly been the biggest voice to erase "open source" from the map since it was coined. All while acknowledging that it has mostly the same goals as the free software movement. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.e...
- oldmanjay 11y ago
  The unfortunate thing about gnu and the fsf is that they think connotation management and "clever" wordplay are effective marketing strategies.
  - rando289 11y ago
    "Open source" was designed for the sole purpose of being "clever" wordplay and an effective marketing strategy, so you really can't blame fsf on that one. Words matter. See "pro life" vs "pro choice", see "terrorist" vs "criminal" see "migrant" vs "alleged refuge", etc. etc. The tech press are mouthpieces for the big corporations, and all of the big corporations do not want free software messing with their profits, so they use and coin words which align with their interests. It's perfectly natural for fsf to use different words.
- johncolanduoni 11y ago
  I'm aware of their thoughts on the distinction between open and free software. However these are (a) lost on most people involved in open source and (b) largely irrelevant as far as the FSF's projects being a large part of GNU/Linux, one of the most widely used open source/free software projects, or their dedication to seeing some key legal questions that affect both open source and free software play out in court.

exo762 11y ago

This is false. E.g. they make perfectly clear that some software (e.g. games) are perfectly fine being proprietary and closed source.

mechazawa 11y ago
Why? If ID showed one thing it is that you can safely publish your source code as long as the user still has to pay for the actual assets.