4 ms·

That's a great comment to prove my point on how software freedom is completely absent from public discourse :) I'll let Stallman speak for me: https://www.gnu

by kaoD 4y ago

That's a great comment to prove my point on how software freedom is completely absent from public discourse :) I'll let Stallman speak for me: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....

Gigachad 4y ago
Stallman made up his own definition of open source which is different than the common definition. The OSI best sums it up here https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd their definition is essentially the same as the FSF essential freedoms. Without classifying "Stallman's definition of Open Source" people will assume something much like the OSI one. What Stallman calls Open Source is what the rest of the world calls Source Available. Stallman shows his lack of communication skills again here by endlessly fighting to redefine words for no purpose.
- kaoD 4y ago
  > What Stallman calls Open Source is what the rest of the world calls Source Available That's absolutely wrong, as clearly explained in the article I linked to.
  - jujube3 4y ago
    Stallman appears to be considering "source available" licenses which forbid modification (and sometimes deployment) as "open source." This is not the definition of open source that everyone else uses. Certainly the OSI would not agree. There is more information here: https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd RMS was around in the 1980s when "open source" was still being defined. So maybe he thinks he can define it however he likes. But to the rest of us it doesn't make sense, like saying "software that has a free software license, like GNU Emacs and Microsoft Word." One of those two doesn't belong in that sentence, and saying that I'm using my own custom definition of "free software" is a pretty shitty way to argue.

4 ms·

That's a great comment to prove my point on how software freedom is completely absent from public discourse :) I'll let Stallman speak for me: https://www.gnu

by kaoD 4y ago

Gigachad 4y ago
Stallman made up his own definition of open source which is different than the common definition. The OSI best sums it up here https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd their definition is essentially the same as the FSF essential freedoms. Without classifying "Stallman's definition of Open Source" people will assume something much like the OSI one. What Stallman calls Open Source is what the rest of the world calls Source Available. Stallman shows his lack of communication skills again here by endlessly fighting to redefine words for no purpose.
- kaoD 4y ago
  > What Stallman calls Open Source is what the rest of the world calls Source Available That's absolutely wrong, as clearly explained in the article I linked to.
  - jujube3 4y ago
    Stallman appears to be considering "source available" licenses which forbid modification (and sometimes deployment) as "open source." This is not the definition of open source that everyone else uses. Certainly the OSI would not agree. There is more information here: https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd RMS was around in the 1980s when "open source" was still being defined. So maybe he thinks he can define it however he likes. But to the rest of us it doesn't make sense, like saying "software that has a free software license, like GNU Emacs and Microsoft Word." One of those two doesn't belong in that sentence, and saying that I'm using my own custom definition of "free software" is a pretty shitty way to argue.