4 ms·

> free to the end user To which none can answer how it creates freedom without mass adoption to actually get the software into end users' hands. The great co

> free to the end user To which none can answer how it creates freedom without mass adoption to actually get the software into end users' hands. The great contradiction in FSF philosophy is to create highly pure software within a monastery of programmer-users while simultaneously insisting to focus on end-user freedoms without reconciling programmer incentives to build what these end users need.

lelanthran 1y ago
And yet despite your theory it appeared to work quite well in practice. If reality disproves your theory, it's not reality that's wrong.
- positron26 1y ago
  Open source works. FSF tactics for producing and promoting free/libre do not. Let's not give the FSF credit for what open source does.
  - lelanthran 1y ago
    > FSF tactics for producing and promoting free/libre do not. What is your criteria for judgement here? The FSF GPL licenses, in reality have worked quite well, if the criteria is longevity, high usage, popularity, utility and maintained. If your only criteria is "Well, they're only #2", then sure, by that criteria they did not "work".
    - positron26 1y ago
      Just look at LLVM and GCC, the central subject here. GCC is hanging on while entire ecosystems build on top of LLVM, primarily for technical reasons. What started off as insularity lead to technical weakness. Technical weakness will end in obscurity. What is free after that?
      - lelanthran 1y ago
        > GCC is hanging on while entire ecosystems build on top of LLVM, primarily for technical reasons. What are you talking about? GCC usage is well ahead of LLVM usage. And even if it wasn't ahead, it's still the default compiler for almost every production micro controller in use. GCC is the default on most deployed systems today.
        positron26 1y ago
        Git contributors: LLVM: 5k GCC: 1k This is not what sustainability looks like: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&q=%2Fm%2F02__f6,%2Fm%2F037gj,%2Fm%2F02w3_by&hl=en https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&q=... The crossover will more likely be driven by silicon trends providing an opportunity for LLVM's velocity to translate to enough competitive advantage for casual users to want LLVM. Once that happens, you will see some Linux distributions switch over. Hard liners will fork and do what they do, but asking people to use a compiler that gives them a worse result or is harder to work with isn't going to hold the gates. Linus prefers LLVM for development. People need to get out of the 90s and look at some data.
        lelanthran 1y ago
        Right. That could happen in the future, but your assertion was that it had already happened, and you used that assertion as support for why the GPL already resulted in lower use. I can't see the future, but I can tell you without a doubt that, as things stand right now, the GPL has been a runaway success for users' rights. Will that change in the future? Who knows? But that wasn't your claim nor my counterclaim.
tgma 1y ago
I'm responding to this comment as an end user with a free browser and free OS and it works perfectly fine. Billions of users do in fact. So there doesn't need to be an answer. He can just show it to you.
- positron26 1y ago
  How much of it is GPL3?
  - tgma 1y ago
    Why would it matter in this context; the GP was asking a theoretical question akin to "how is it physically possible for the sky to be blue?" and I am just pointing at the sky saying "look!" It is Free Software whether it is BSD or GPL3. By all measures, Free Software as originally envisaged has been a massive success. It's just the goalposts have expanded over the years.
    - positron26 1y ago
      > It is Free Software whether it is BSD or GPL3. You clearly did not read the FSF manifestos and don't understand their positions. They will call the BSD license "permissive" and will correct you if you attempt to call BSD "free/libre". > Why would it matter The FSF didn't build "open source." They actively work to discredit open source. Let's not give them credit for what they tirelessly denounce. Linux is open source, but did not adopt the GPL3. Firefox is open source but uses MPL. If the FSF is a leader who is responsible for all of these great projects, why doesn't anyone want to use their license?
      - tgma 1y ago
        > ...will correct you if you attempt to call BSD "free/libre". Wrong. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.en.html > The FSF didn't build "open source." They actively work to discredit open source. Let's not give them credit for what they tirelessly denounce. Where did I ever use that term in this conversation?

lelanthran 1y ago

And yet despite your theory it appeared to work quite well in practice. If reality disproves your theory, it's not reality that's wrong.

positron26 1y ago
Open source works. FSF tactics for producing and promoting free/libre do not. Let's not give the FSF credit for what open source does.
- lelanthran 1y ago
  > FSF tactics for producing and promoting free/libre do not. What is your criteria for judgement here? The FSF GPL licenses, in reality have worked quite well, if the criteria is longevity, high usage, popularity, utility and maintained. If your only criteria is "Well, they're only #2", then sure, by that criteria they did not "work".
  - positron26 1y ago
    Just look at LLVM and GCC, the central subject here. GCC is hanging on while entire ecosystems build on top of LLVM, primarily for technical reasons. What started off as insularity lead to technical weakness. Technical weakness will end in obscurity. What is free after that?
    - lelanthran 1y ago
      > GCC is hanging on while entire ecosystems build on top of LLVM, primarily for technical reasons. What are you talking about? GCC usage is well ahead of LLVM usage. And even if it wasn't ahead, it's still the default compiler for almost every production micro controller in use. GCC is the default on most deployed systems today.
      - positron26 1y ago
        Git contributors: LLVM: 5k GCC: 1k This is not what sustainability looks like: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&q=%2Fm%2F02__f6,%2Fm%2F037gj,%2Fm%2F02w3_by&hl=en https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&q=... The crossover will more likely be driven by silicon trends providing an opportunity for LLVM's velocity to translate to enough competitive advantage for casual users to want LLVM. Once that happens, you will see some Linux distributions switch over. Hard liners will fork and do what they do, but asking people to use a compiler that gives them a worse result or is harder to work with isn't going to hold the gates. Linus prefers LLVM for development. People need to get out of the 90s and look at some data.
        lelanthran 1y ago
        Right. That could happen in the future, but your assertion was that it had already happened, and you used that assertion as support for why the GPL already resulted in lower use. I can't see the future, but I can tell you without a doubt that, as things stand right now, the GPL has been a runaway success for users' rights. Will that change in the future? Who knows? But that wasn't your claim nor my counterclaim.

tgma 1y ago

I'm responding to this comment as an end user with a free browser and free OS and it works perfectly fine. Billions of users do in fact. So there doesn't need to be an answer. He can just show it to you.

positron26 1y ago
How much of it is GPL3?
- tgma 1y ago
  Why would it matter in this context; the GP was asking a theoretical question akin to "how is it physically possible for the sky to be blue?" and I am just pointing at the sky saying "look!" It is Free Software whether it is BSD or GPL3. By all measures, Free Software as originally envisaged has been a massive success. It's just the goalposts have expanded over the years.
  - positron26 1y ago
    > It is Free Software whether it is BSD or GPL3. You clearly did not read the FSF manifestos and don't understand their positions. They will call the BSD license "permissive" and will correct you if you attempt to call BSD "free/libre". > Why would it matter The FSF didn't build "open source." They actively work to discredit open source. Let's not give them credit for what they tirelessly denounce. Linux is open source, but did not adopt the GPL3. Firefox is open source but uses MPL. If the FSF is a leader who is responsible for all of these great projects, why doesn't anyone want to use their license?
    - tgma 1y ago
      > ...will correct you if you attempt to call BSD "free/libre". Wrong. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.en.html > The FSF didn't build "open source." They actively work to discredit open source. Let's not give them credit for what they tirelessly denounce. Where did I ever use that term in this conversation?