5 ms·

Is there anybody who's actually been convinced to switch to the 100% pure and ethical GNU/RMS lifestyle by these articles or is it just preaching to the choir?

calvinmorrison 4y ago
What convinced me was their jobs are all unionized. I would love to be the director of communications for 50K a year in Boston, but hey, at least we're in a Union
causality0 4y ago
There's no denying the FSF has done good things, but I think more often than not they shoot themselves in the foot with their "wanting fair compensation for your work is evil" preaching. A market composed of honest users supporting honest developers, developing and selling software that focuses exclusively on the needs of the customer, would be the best possible system.
- rzzzt 4y ago
  Selling GPL-ed software and/or providing proprietary licensed versions in exchange for money is acceptable. Straight from the, ahem, GNU's mouth: - https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html - https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling-exceptions.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling-exceptions.html
  - causality0 4y ago
    Actually, we encourage people who redistribute free software to charge as much as they wish or can. If a license does not permit users to make copies and sell them, it is a nonfree license. This is moronic pseudo-religious doublespeak. They're saying it's acceptable to charge a fee for the one part of software creation that's effectively cost-free.
    - rzzzt 4y ago
      It is cost-free if you have a knack for figuring out everything on your own, how build systems work, do it for a day job, etc.
  - School-Cotton 4y ago
    Few people, in practice, have been able make a living selling pure GPLv3 software. Indeed it’s not strictly impossible but it’s extremely difficult under normal conditions. Even most of the vendors of free software today (e.g. Confluent) are using some kind of SaaS or open core model.
    - chii 4y ago
      to sell something that is infinitely, freely replicated, means you must also add some value to the object being sold. Unlike physical objects, where the sale accounts for the cost of production of material etc, what value does someone trying to sell a GPLv3 software add? I argue that the added value is zero, and hence, the price must be zero as well.
m463 4y ago
I talked to RMS once, and he said "Proprietary software subjugates users." At the time, I thought it seemed a little over-the-top. Yet since then, I have personally lost control of many of the computing devices I use. The phone was the biggest one, and I can't (don't?) avoid phones altogether like RMS. His words were actually accurate. Now, I do think that some people try to get a message across, and are not heard, so they use stronger words until they get a response. Those messages do become over-the-top. But I have come to realize that RMS himself carefully chooses his words.
- dvzk 4y ago
  > Yet since then, I have personally lost control of many of the computing devices I use. No, you haven't. Or rather, you didn't lose control because of any software license. We lost control because of cryptography and enforced signature verification. Just because software is licensed as open source doesn't mean it allows for third-party firmware modification. Maybe it's because I came up through the RE scene, but the false association between open source and ownership or security has always stood out to me. Many of the modding and hacking communities that orbit proprietary software are/were more vibrant than anything that exists in the totally open source space.
  - mxkopy 4y ago
    > Or rather, you didn't lose control because of any software license. We lost control because of cryptography and enforced signature verification. I'm not sure what you mean by this. It's the law that's a barrier, not cryptography. If you break the DRM on a game you can still face legal consequences, even if the company that licenses it doesn't support it anymore.
    - dvzk 4y ago
      Copyright laws are not what is stopping custom firmware projects on many devices. It’s the inability to flash non-signed firmware. Legal considerations in general have minor pragmatic relevance for modding projects that are not lazily redistributing copyrighted assets or circumventing copyright protection. If you’re engaging in piracy then you’re not just giving people more control over what they own.
ilyt 4y ago
I prefer OSS in every case where it is viable but there are just no alternatives. Not because RMS, just when shit inevitably breaks I have all the parts in the view, not black box making smoke. Or even occasionally just fix it myself and throw a patch.
madrox 4y ago
I've wondered that myself. In my experience, people were practically born into the GNU lifestyle or they weren't. I've never known someone to convert past the age of 20.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
fsflover 4y ago
I switched to GNU/Linux after reading essays from the "Free Software, Free Society" book. It took years, but I did it. Also, I'm using an FSF-endorsed OS on my phone right now (Librem 5 with PureOS).
ubermonkey 4y ago
I feel like really outre levels of evangelism, including the linked article but also & especially including religious evangelists who go out of their way to try and preach in inhospitable locations (e.g., preachers on left-leaning college campuses yelling about gay people) are partly or even MOSTLY in it FOR the backlash. It makes them feel righteous.
- fsflover 4y ago
  This comment is itself religious, not based on any logical arguments.
  - ubermonkey 4y ago
    LOL
jacobsenscott 4y ago
Certainly. Nobody is born into the free software choir.
dathinab 4y ago
they exist, but they live in their own world
wetpaws 4y ago
Partially, yes, switched to Linux. I always thought RMS being a fun and entertainig but ultimately a weirdo. Turns out he was right all alo g and I was an idiot.

calvinmorrison 4y ago

What convinced me was their jobs are all unionized. I would love to be the director of communications for 50K a year in Boston, but hey, at least we're in a Union

causality0 4y ago

There's no denying the FSF has done good things, but I think more often than not they shoot themselves in the foot with their "wanting fair compensation for your work is evil" preaching. A market composed of honest users supporting honest developers, developing and selling software that focuses exclusively on the needs of the customer, would be the best possible system.

rzzzt 4y ago
Selling GPL-ed software and/or providing proprietary licensed versions in exchange for money is acceptable. Straight from the, ahem, GNU's mouth: - https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html - https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling-exceptions.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling-exceptions.html
- causality0 4y ago
  Actually, we encourage people who redistribute free software to charge as much as they wish or can. If a license does not permit users to make copies and sell them, it is a nonfree license. This is moronic pseudo-religious doublespeak. They're saying it's acceptable to charge a fee for the one part of software creation that's effectively cost-free.
  - rzzzt 4y ago
    It is cost-free if you have a knack for figuring out everything on your own, how build systems work, do it for a day job, etc.
- School-Cotton 4y ago
  Few people, in practice, have been able make a living selling pure GPLv3 software. Indeed it’s not strictly impossible but it’s extremely difficult under normal conditions. Even most of the vendors of free software today (e.g. Confluent) are using some kind of SaaS or open core model.
  - chii 4y ago
    to sell something that is infinitely, freely replicated, means you must also add some value to the object being sold. Unlike physical objects, where the sale accounts for the cost of production of material etc, what value does someone trying to sell a GPLv3 software add? I argue that the added value is zero, and hence, the price must be zero as well.

m463 4y ago

I talked to RMS once, and he said "Proprietary software subjugates users." At the time, I thought it seemed a little over-the-top. Yet since then, I have personally lost control of many of the computing devices I use. The phone was the biggest one, and I can't (don't?) avoid phones altogether like RMS. His words were actually accurate. Now, I do think that some people try to get a message across, and are not heard, so they use stronger words until they get a response. Those messages do become over-the-top. But I have come to realize that RMS himself carefully chooses his words.

dvzk 4y ago
> Yet since then, I have personally lost control of many of the computing devices I use. No, you haven't. Or rather, you didn't lose control because of any software license. We lost control because of cryptography and enforced signature verification. Just because software is licensed as open source doesn't mean it allows for third-party firmware modification. Maybe it's because I came up through the RE scene, but the false association between open source and ownership or security has always stood out to me. Many of the modding and hacking communities that orbit proprietary software are/were more vibrant than anything that exists in the totally open source space.
- mxkopy 4y ago
  > Or rather, you didn't lose control because of any software license. We lost control because of cryptography and enforced signature verification. I'm not sure what you mean by this. It's the law that's a barrier, not cryptography. If you break the DRM on a game you can still face legal consequences, even if the company that licenses it doesn't support it anymore.
  - dvzk 4y ago
    Copyright laws are not what is stopping custom firmware projects on many devices. It’s the inability to flash non-signed firmware. Legal considerations in general have minor pragmatic relevance for modding projects that are not lazily redistributing copyrighted assets or circumventing copyright protection. If you’re engaging in piracy then you’re not just giving people more control over what they own.

ilyt 4y ago

I prefer OSS in every case where it is viable but there are just no alternatives. Not because RMS, just when shit inevitably breaks I have all the parts in the view, not black box making smoke. Or even occasionally just fix it myself and throw a patch.

madrox 4y ago

I've wondered that myself. In my experience, people were practically born into the GNU lifestyle or they weren't. I've never known someone to convert past the age of 20.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

fsflover 4y ago

I switched to GNU/Linux after reading essays from the "Free Software, Free Society" book. It took years, but I did it. Also, I'm using an FSF-endorsed OS on my phone right now (Librem 5 with PureOS).

ubermonkey 4y ago

I feel like really outre levels of evangelism, including the linked article but also & especially including religious evangelists who go out of their way to try and preach in inhospitable locations (e.g., preachers on left-leaning college campuses yelling about gay people) are partly or even MOSTLY in it FOR the backlash. It makes them feel righteous.

fsflover 4y ago
This comment is itself religious, not based on any logical arguments.
- ubermonkey 4y ago
  LOL

jacobsenscott 4y ago

Certainly. Nobody is born into the free software choir.

dathinab 4y ago

they exist, but they live in their own world

wetpaws 4y ago

Partially, yes, switched to Linux. I always thought RMS being a fun and entertainig but ultimately a weirdo. Turns out he was right all alo g and I was an idiot.