4 ms·

How is it “extreme”? The point of the FSF is to foster and support free software. Supporting non-free software is literally the opposite of their mission. The

by bogwog 5y ago

How is it “extreme”? The point of the FSF is to foster and support free software. Supporting non-free software is literally the opposite of their mission. The guy you replied to is being childish and exaggerating. The FSF isn’t some extremist organization out to destroy people who dare to write or use closed source software. Do they refuse to include proprietary software in their distributions/projects? Obviously. Are they going to tell you to go fuck yourself because you refuse to release the source code to your app? Probably not (I guess if you’re an asshole about it, someone might) > the FSF and Stallman are negative assets for FOSS The FSF and Stallman are the only assets for FOSS. Who else is supporting free software?

kube-system 5y ago
> The FSF and Stallman are the only assets for FOSS. The FSF doesn't even support the use of the term "FOSS". They support the idea of libre software. The broader "open source" community is much larger than the FSF or RMS. The GPL is the third most popular FOSS license.
- bogwog 5y ago
  > The FSF doesn't even support the use of the term "FOSS". Personally I use "FOSS" as shorthand for FSF's definition of "free software". If that's misleading, then I guess I should stop using it. Would you happen to have a link to a blog post or something about this? > They support the idea of libre software. The broader "open source" community is much larger than the FSF or RMS. I'm not talking about the "open source" community. There's a difference between free software and open source software. It's obvious that I'm not talking about "open source" here, otherwise it'd suggest that I think FSF and RMS are the only ones writing open source software. I can't even imagine a situation where someone could be led to believe that, especially on HN. > The GPL is the third most popular FOSS license. Regardless of what you mean by "FOSS" here, how is that statistic relevant to the discussion?
mustache_kimono 5y ago
I think you may have too rosy a view of the FSF. Step back and think about what the FSF has done for FOSS in the last 10 years. When people say "I don't want to get into a licensing debate" who do you think they are talking about? > Are they going to tell you to go fuck yourself because you refuse to release the source code to your app? Probably not (I guess if you’re an asshole about it, someone might) I can cite an example of where someone from the FSF has hassled an FOSS project that refused to modify their license to the GPL, and instead chose MIT. I'd prefer not link here, because I don't want the maintainers to be inundated with further (BS) requests. I'd say that's extreme. What's worse is it's off-putting (to me, at the very least). > The FSF and Stallman are the only assets for FOSS. Who else is supporting free software? Um, literally all the people writing FOSS? Mozilla, IBM/Redhat, Google?
- eptcyka 5y ago
  How much of what Mozilla and Google are writing is released under GPL?
  - mustache_kimono 5y ago
    I guess I don't understand your point. Are you saying non-GPL open source licenses (Apache, MPL2, MIT) aren't FOSS? That seems like a pretty extreme position.
    - bogwog 5y ago
      > That seems like a pretty extreme position. I think you're confusing some terms. "Free software" != "Open source software". (although MPL2 is a free software license, like GPL/LGPL). Ever heard the saying "free as in freedom"? That's what "free software" is about. It has nothing to do with money or pricing. A license like Apache or MIT is not a free software license because it does not provide any freedom to end users. Look at Android for example: there's something called AOSP on the internet, which contains some code that you can download. However, that code is not the same code that's powering the phone you have in your pocket. Since AOSP is licensed under Apache, Samsung is able to fork it, add/remove features, inject all the spyware they want etc, and then sell it to you as a binary blob without giving you the source code. If Android were GPL, they'd be obligated to release the source code that's powering their devices. This would be a huge win for consumers, and a huge win for the entire tech industry at large, since everyone can benefit from the development efforts Samsung put in. If Samsung wants to keep that code secret, then they simply must avoid using free (as in freedom) software. It worries me that devs today don't seem to get this. The tech industry would be 99.999% owned and operated by Microsoft today if not for the efforts of the FSF and Stallman. More/better info: https://www.fsf.org/resources/what-is-fs https://www.fsf.org/resources/what-is-fs

by bogwog 5y ago

kube-system 5y ago

> The FSF and Stallman are the only assets for FOSS. The FSF doesn't even support the use of the term "FOSS". They support the idea of libre software. The broader "open source" community is much larger than the FSF or RMS. The GPL is the third most popular FOSS license.

bogwog 5y ago
> The FSF doesn't even support the use of the term "FOSS". Personally I use "FOSS" as shorthand for FSF's definition of "free software". If that's misleading, then I guess I should stop using it. Would you happen to have a link to a blog post or something about this? > They support the idea of libre software. The broader "open source" community is much larger than the FSF or RMS. I'm not talking about the "open source" community. There's a difference between free software and open source software. It's obvious that I'm not talking about "open source" here, otherwise it'd suggest that I think FSF and RMS are the only ones writing open source software. I can't even imagine a situation where someone could be led to believe that, especially on HN. > The GPL is the third most popular FOSS license. Regardless of what you mean by "FOSS" here, how is that statistic relevant to the discussion?

mustache_kimono 5y ago

I think you may have too rosy a view of the FSF. Step back and think about what the FSF has done for FOSS in the last 10 years. When people say "I don't want to get into a licensing debate" who do you think they are talking about? > Are they going to tell you to go fuck yourself because you refuse to release the source code to your app? Probably not (I guess if you’re an asshole about it, someone might) I can cite an example of where someone from the FSF has hassled an FOSS project that refused to modify their license to the GPL, and instead chose MIT. I'd prefer not link here, because I don't want the maintainers to be inundated with further (BS) requests. I'd say that's extreme. What's worse is it's off-putting (to me, at the very least). > The FSF and Stallman are the only assets for FOSS. Who else is supporting free software? Um, literally all the people writing FOSS? Mozilla, IBM/Redhat, Google?

eptcyka 5y ago
How much of what Mozilla and Google are writing is released under GPL?
- mustache_kimono 5y ago
  I guess I don't understand your point. Are you saying non-GPL open source licenses (Apache, MPL2, MIT) aren't FOSS? That seems like a pretty extreme position.
  - bogwog 5y ago
    > That seems like a pretty extreme position. I think you're confusing some terms. "Free software" != "Open source software". (although MPL2 is a free software license, like GPL/LGPL). Ever heard the saying "free as in freedom"? That's what "free software" is about. It has nothing to do with money or pricing. A license like Apache or MIT is not a free software license because it does not provide any freedom to end users. Look at Android for example: there's something called AOSP on the internet, which contains some code that you can download. However, that code is not the same code that's powering the phone you have in your pocket. Since AOSP is licensed under Apache, Samsung is able to fork it, add/remove features, inject all the spyware they want etc, and then sell it to you as a binary blob without giving you the source code. If Android were GPL, they'd be obligated to release the source code that's powering their devices. This would be a huge win for consumers, and a huge win for the entire tech industry at large, since everyone can benefit from the development efforts Samsung put in. If Samsung wants to keep that code secret, then they simply must avoid using free (as in freedom) software. It worries me that devs today don't seem to get this. The tech industry would be 99.999% owned and operated by Microsoft today if not for the efforts of the FSF and Stallman. More/better info: https://www.fsf.org/resources/what-is-fs https://www.fsf.org/resources/what-is-fs