4 ms·
There is certainly controversy around RMS, as you say. But I think more generally, wrt FSF there's not so much controversy [1] as disappointment in the FSF fai
by jabl 5y ago
There is certainly controversy around RMS, as you say.
But I think more generally, wrt FSF there's not so much controversy [1] as disappointment in the FSF failing to stay relevant. Copyleft was a solution to the 80/90'ies software world. The FSF tried with the AGPL to answer the 'threat' of SaaS, but largely the world has shunned it except as a poison pill license to upsell a proprietary version. Similarly with the GPLv3 the FSF tried to answer to the threat of Tivoization, but again, largely failed to gain adherents in the low level components, like the Linux kernel, where this would have mattered.
[1] Well, the FSF taking RMS back on its board did produce a tsunami of corporate (financial) contributors leaving ship.
- the_af 5y agoThe "failure to stay relevant" is an odd comment that I have indeed read many times (mostly from English-speakers; as I said, in Latin America the FSF is admired). It's odd because it's worded in a way that sounds as if the FSF wasn't necessary now (or maybe even never), instead of thinking that the FSF is needed more than ever, now that there's a war against general purpose computing and against privacy and users' rights, and that if the GPL3 and AGPL didn't work -- which is possible! -- then how do we fix that? Instead it's either apathy and even scorn against the FSF, which is alarming to me.
- type0 5y ago> Instead it's either apathy and even scorn against the FSF, which is alarming to me. It's not just FSF, there's also ethical software types trying to destroy OSI from within. We are seeing so many attempts to dismantle important organizations now it leaves me baffled.