2 ms·

> It is no longer meant to serve us, but someone else who will abuse us for money. As predicted by Richard Stallman. People hate him because of the conclusions

by vjk800 4y ago

> It is no longer meant to serve us, but someone else who will abuse us for money. As predicted by Richard Stallman. People hate him because of the conclusions he draws from his principles, even though they turn out to be right every single time.

r_hoods_ghost 4y ago
Nah. It's because people look at the conclusions he draws, that foss will benefit users, devs and the world with no downsides, and then look at the reality of the shit show of a world built on foss that we actually live in, and conclude that the organisations who benefit the most are Microsoft, google, Amazon etc. and the people who benefit the most are billionaire rent seekers and the people who work, or who want to work for them. Based on this they conclude that he's deluded. The answer to this is not more foss, license tweaks or moving off GitHub but less giving away your time and money.
- dTal 4y ago
  You are taking so much for granted in this comment. World built on FOSS? You should be thanking Stallman on bended knee for making that possible at all. The rent-seeking situation before FOSS was infinitely worse. Today, you can spin up a cluster of servers with state of the art load balancing, databases, checkpointed filesystems, and a standardized OS without paying a cent to anyone in software licensing fees. Do you even realize the magnitude of this achievement? Sure, billionaires benefit - so do the rest of us. A rising tide lifts all boats. Don't blame FOSS for the evils of capitalist rent-seeking; the rent-seekers of old have been toppled.
- gryn 4y ago
  haven't read his stuff in depth but isn't stallman for copyleft not all FOSS ? and him mellowing out the copyleft stance, because not enough people are behind it therefore a need to compromise ? because in a world you're required by law to open source and have the same copyleft license or stronger if you're using copyleft based projects that rent seeking would not be possible, but so is making money out software and the majority of the folks here and in the tech industry really don't want that. I really wish be had that world, software would be a single community project, but less then a tenth of the people in the industry today would exist (and there will be no 'industry').

by vjk800 4y ago

r_hoods_ghost 4y ago

Nah. It's because people look at the conclusions he draws, that foss will benefit users, devs and the world with no downsides, and then look at the reality of the shit show of a world built on foss that we actually live in, and conclude that the organisations who benefit the most are Microsoft, google, Amazon etc. and the people who benefit the most are billionaire rent seekers and the people who work, or who want to work for them. Based on this they conclude that he's deluded. The answer to this is not more foss, license tweaks or moving off GitHub but less giving away your time and money.

dTal 4y ago
You are taking so much for granted in this comment. World built on FOSS? You should be thanking Stallman on bended knee for making that possible at all. The rent-seeking situation before FOSS was infinitely worse. Today, you can spin up a cluster of servers with state of the art load balancing, databases, checkpointed filesystems, and a standardized OS without paying a cent to anyone in software licensing fees. Do you even realize the magnitude of this achievement? Sure, billionaires benefit - so do the rest of us. A rising tide lifts all boats. Don't blame FOSS for the evils of capitalist rent-seeking; the rent-seekers of old have been toppled.
gryn 4y ago
haven't read his stuff in depth but isn't stallman for copyleft not all FOSS ? and him mellowing out the copyleft stance, because not enough people are behind it therefore a need to compromise ? because in a world you're required by law to open source and have the same copyleft license or stronger if you're using copyleft based projects that rent seeking would not be possible, but so is making money out software and the majority of the folks here and in the tech industry really don't want that. I really wish be had that world, software would be a single community project, but less then a tenth of the people in the industry today would exist (and there will be no 'industry').